Forget-Me-Not Chapter 10

You may also like...

220 Responses

  1. Gabriella says:

    How are you, Ms Puddle?

    Are you planning on taking some time off during the summer?

    Thank you very much for offering us a further chapter to your new fanfiction. The suspense in tandem with the tension between Candy and Albert is intensifying, hence, making this story even more intriguing. Can’t wait to read what happens next.

    I know that many people have already warned you but please make sure you always watermark your fanart because loads of social media outlets and accounts are showcasing your work. This is great provided that everybody is aware that this work belongs to you.

    Best Wishes!

    • Ms Puddle says:

      Thank you @Gabriella for catching up 🤗 I intended to write a short story but oh well… 😃 Glad you don’t mind the long wait between chapters.

      About my fanart, thank you for your reminder. 🤗 I did put my watermark and hope that people respect my work.

      Best wishes to you too 😘

      • Gabriella says:

        There will always be people who respect the work of others but there are also those who don’t. That’s why it’s best to keep your own work watermarked just in case and to cover all possibilities.

        • Ms Puddle says:

          Thanks Gabriella! I meant to ask but forgot. Do you think my latest fanart is clearly watermarked or do you think it’s not enough?

          • Gabriella says:

            It’s quite alright. Just make sure scammers and others who want to profit out of your work don’t manage to navigate their way out of removing or blurring out the watermark. There’s software available where this is possible and disables online scoundrels from exploiting the work of others.

            • Ms Puddle says:

              Thank you @Gabriella 🤗

            • Ms Puddle says:

              Thanks @Gabriella! I’ve already used software but then there might be other more sophisticated ones. Thanks for your reminder! ☺️

              • Gabriella says:

                It’s good to change watermark style from time to time just like passwords. The plethora of software available really helps.

  2. DreamCatcher says:

    Top-notch quality! This most recent fanart of Candy is so beautiful and it could easily represent what she must have looked like during her early adulthood. Given her very petite frame, Candy would most possibly always look younger than her age.

    Since quite a few folks are celebrating Candy’s “birthday” this month, I wonder if there is any concrete textual evidence surrounding her exact age or date of birth. Some folks argue that Candy was born in 1898 whilst others claim it was 1899. There are a few who argue that Candy was born in 1897 or 1900. If I’m not mistaken and based on the certified translations of the CCFS (and not on the claims of some random fans), there is no textual evidence provided in regard to Candy’s date of birth. The manga seems to suggest that she was born during the turn of the century (circa 1899-1900) as described in the opening statement of Candy’s story when she and Annie were left outside Ms Pony’s home during a winter storm.

    What’s your take on this Ms Puddle? Is there any indisputable evidence provided in the original Japanese manga and novels (old and new)?

    • Ms Puddle says:

      Thank you @DreamCatcher for your positive feedback on my latest fanart❣️ About Candy’s birthday, when the manga was serialized in the Nakayoshi magazine, there were posters or inserts for various important characters’ birthdates, heights, and other stats. (except for Albert, who had remained mysterious till the end).

      In one of my old posts, I’ve shared one of these, in which Candy’s birthday was clearly May 7, 1898. If I remember correctly, the novel only made a minor change that by the time Candy left the orphanage, she was already 13. In the manga she turned 13 later. I hope this answers your questions?

      • DreamCatcher says:

        Thank you for your response. I hope you don’t mind if I pose some more queries.
        My first query involves the inserts for the Nakayoshi magazine. Were they endorsed by Nagita? Did she provide that information? Were the illustrations by Igarashi? Regarding Albert, it would make sense not to disclose any information about him because that would have been a major spoiler to the entire story.
        My second query is about your reference to Candy’s date of birth. Is this clearly stated in the old novel or just in the inserts for the Nakayoshi magazine? There is no reference to Candy’s date of birth in the new novel, however. As you’ve mentioned, the readers only get to know that Candy is 13 by the time she leaves the orphanage. It’s also noteworthy that Nagita specifies in the CCFS that Albert is only a decade older than Candy, presumably, to put a lid on some of those idiots who keep on obsessing that Albert is a father-figure to Candy. Prior to the publication of the CCFS, there were some old clowns on social media spreading bogus arguments that Albert was Candy’s father because he was more than 20 years older than her. Fortunately, Nagita was shrewd enough so as to insert that most useful snippet of information that Albert is about a decade older than Candy and that’s it. Furthermore, Albert continues to be much younger in the 1930s than most of those fools lurking on social media desperately trying to degrade and disparage him. By the time Albert would reach their age, it would be well into the 1940s or even the 1950s.
        My third query has to do with a different topic and it’s about the opening section of the CCFS. If I remember correctly, Candy was apologetic to Ms Pony for not being able to travel to the USA to visit her because the man she loved wouldn’t allow her as he wanted her by his side all the time. Is this how it’s stated in the original Japanese text as well?
        Thank you for your time and my apologies for bombarding you with all these questions.

        • Ms Puddle says:

          Hello @DreamCatcher, about Nakayoshi magazine, if I’m not mistaken, they were cooperating with the editors, so Nagita provided the manuscripts for the illustrator Igarashi. Remember the incident of two badges? That happened when the original editor was replaced with another, who preferred Igarashi’s idea over Nagita’s manuscripts. Nagita happened to be out of town so the episodes were not faithfully done based on her manuscript. That said, I remember reading on Twitter that some readers indicated that they had been confused by then when the manga bound as books had been different than the serialized version, because by then Nagita had forced Igarashi to redraw those ruined episodes.

          I haven’t read the old novel myself so I don’t know the answer. About Candy’s birthdate published in Nakayoshi, that was the early stage when they were promoting CC, so it’s unlikely that they would do anything against the author’s wishes. The editor back then was on Nagita’s side, trying to present a story that inspired young ladies, but the other editor and Igarashi wanted to reduce CC to a love story (that was Nagita’s words if I remember correctly).

          Well said about Albert’s age, my friend!! In fact, most normal fans, for many years, assumed Prince on the Hill was Anthony’s age (so age gap was roughly 9 to 10 years). In CCFS Nagita sensei clearly indicated that the age gap was 11. Yes, it’s slightly more, but Albert could not have fathered Candy lol.

          About Anohito, Candy in her 30s wrote about Pony’s Home reconstruction and the land purchase, owing to Granduncle William. (Near the beginning of Section 2, book 1). She said that the orphanage is overflowed with orphans. She then indicated that, in present tense, (I have tried not to paraphrase),

          I want to be more helpful to the teachers, but now, Anohito, above all else, wants me to be close to him always, and I do not want to leave (to be separated from) his side either.

          Undoubtedly, the feeling was mutual, and Candy’s decision was to stay with Anohito.

          It’s actually very hard to translate this, because (1) Candy only specified Miss Pony’s name, sort of like Miss Pony and the other teacher. It’s typical when it’s understood who the other is. (2) The entire phrase “above all else wants me to be always close” is used to describe Anohito.

          Hope this helps! 🙂

          • DreamCatcher says:

            Thank you for this comprehensive explanation. I appreciate it that you took the time to get back to me about these queries of mine.

            With that being said, I also did a bit of digging and re-read those sections from the Italian (Kappalab), French (PIKA), and Spanish (Arechi Manga) translations and there is no difference in meaning in any of them. Their translations appear to correctly correspond to the original Japanese text, as you have analysed above.

            It appears that it was Candy who had decided not to visit Ms Pony even though she claimed to be concerned for her health and well-being. You see, some fans argue that it was anohito who had forbidden Candy from leaving his side but that’s not the case. Besides, it would have been completely bizarre and out-of-character if anohito would have ever imposed such a heartless term, provided that anohito was Terry or Albert and not a third party (mentioned or not mentioned in the text).

            Based on the indisputable textual evidence, there is no way that Terry or Albert would have ever prevented Candy from travelling to the USA to visit Ms Pony because both these male characters know how essential and vital Ms Pony and her lovely orphanage (which is more of a home) is to Candy. Terry may be possessive but he would have been a complete villain (just like Neal) if he had given such an awful ultimatum to Candy. The same applies to Albert. As Candy’s partner and given his independent disposition, Albert would have never forced Candy into making such a decision. Both male characters love Candy and they both acknowledge the love she has for Ms Pony and the orphanage. Ms Pony is not only like a mother to Candy be she is better than many biological ones. It would be more than safe to assume that if Candy really wanted to visit Ms Pony, anohito (Terry or Albert) would have definitely supported her decision and perhaps would have also taken time from their jobs to accompany her on her voyage back to the USA.

            Therefore, it seems here that Candy is acting upon her own accord and no one is forcing her, just like nobody had forced her to drop out of school in London and run after Terry and nobody forced her into abandoning her shift at the hospital in Chicago in order to run after Terry again. The same applies for Albert’s case as nobody had forced Candy to sacrifice her hard-earned career in order to run after Albert and even live with him under the same roof.

            To make it clear, Candy’s decisions and actions do not render her heartless but they do demonstrate how reckless, immature and irresponsible she can be. Even though Candy is very sensitive and sentimental, she severely lacks in wisdom and logic. It’s also rather silly from her part that she’s being so apologetic to Ms Pony about not being able to see her but at the same time admits it’s because she’s glued to the man she loves and doesn’t want to let him go. Candy is by far needy ad nauseam and it shouldn’t come as a surprise that she doesn’t count as a role model to the young women of modern societies who refrain from running after dudes whether they be Terry or Albert or anybody else.

            It’s disappointing that Candy’s character wasn’t developed in this more recent 2010 update of the story. Keiko Nagita had the golden opportunity to update and upgrade her novel but all she did was make her main character appear as even more submissive and desperate to her male counterpart.

            • DreamCatcher says:

              There’s a typo I want to correct in order to avoid confusion. I meant to say that Ms Pony is not only like a mother to Candy *but* (not *be*) also better than many biological ones.

            • Anita says:

              Thank you for sharing your excellent commentary – @Ms Puddle and @DreamCatcher. It’s undeniably confirmed in the novel that Candy was the one who didn’t want to head over to the other side of the pond to see Ms Pony. There’s no reference that Candy’s lover forced her into making that decision and I agree with @DreamCatcher that neither Terry nor Albert would have been so insensitive. The problem with Candy is that she puts everything else aside – even her own individuality and independence – so as to tend to the man she loves. It’s clearly stated in the text by Candy herself that happiness means being with the man she loves. Interestingly enough, she never mentions pursuing one’s goals such as becoming well-educated and having a career; nor does she ever mention about having children and raising a family. To Candy, being ‘complete’ simply means being with the man she loves. That’s it. No quest for upward mobility or self-knowledge or personal freedom. Nothing. Perhaps this is the reason why Nagita didn’t even bother mentioning about Candy being a career-woman and/or having a family during the Interbellum because she probably had none of those given she seemed happy enough just living with and tending to the man she loved. The question arises whether Terry or Albert would ever want such a needy woman and the answer could be sure, why not? Even unconventional and often controversial characters such as Terry and Albert would not easily say no to a personalized partner who would constantly be at her toes ready to tend to them as a lady-in-waiting 24/7. Let’s face it, wouldn’t we all enjoy having such a partner, especially if that person wants to assume such a role free-of-charge and Candy sure does seem more than willing. Besides, Terry and Albert weren’t young anymore but entering middle-age territory, hence, leading them to more conservative mentalities. Ironically so, those who used to be ‘rebellious’ in their youth usually end up being conservative when they get older. Candy remains a kid at heart though and she continues to be emotive by placing her love for a guy over anything else whether it be ideals or career or any other element indicative of personal development and aspiration.

              • DreamCatcher says:

                That’s exactly the case, Anita! The issue lies in the discrepancy between the anime-version of Candy vs the manga as well as the novel versions of her.

                In a possible attempt to modernize Candy and appeal to contemporary young viewers, TOEI had decided to create a more feminist and eventually dynamic version of Candy who was more career driven and committed to her ambitions. For example, in the anime Candy didn’t immediately leave St Paul’s boarding school and run after Terry as she did in the manga and novel. Instead, she put in a lot of effort to continue her studies but Eliza and Neal made it so unbearable for her that she had no other alternative but to leave. This difference in the plot is significant because it reveals that Candy was nowhere near as needy and dependent on a man as she was in the manga and novel.

                A similar situation occurs in Chicago too where Candy first made sure that her colleagues would cover for her at work during her night shift and then she would decide to go out and look for Terry. In the novel, however, Candy admits that she was irresponsible by completely disregarding her job and professional duties by heading off into the night looking for Terry. In the anime, Fran Hamilton is the one who appears as rather mean by not accepting the other nurses to cover for Candy’s shift but in the novel Candy admits that Fran was right to be enraged because she left her most crucial post without any notification.

                In the novel, it is crystal clear that the true feminist character is Fran Hamilton due to her empowerment as well as utmost commitment to her job and duty as a nurse. Even Candy confesses in the novel that she could have never mustered Fran’s strong sense of moral duty, professionalism and bravery. Fran Hamilton had the guts to volunteer to become a nurse at the war front whereas Candy clearly had cold feet and recoiled. This lack of courage from Candy’s part is more pronounced in the novel whereas in the anime not nearly as much because she then decided to become a volunteer nurse and endure the harsh conditions of a coal mine. These episodes belong to TOEI, apparently, and not to Nagita.

                Furthermore, Candy is not as needy when it comes to Albert as she is in the manga and novel. In the anime, Candy didn’t seem to have planned living with Albert and they didn’t share everything together either. The series of circumstances and serendipity converged which brought Candy and Albert together and eventually closer in terms of their bonding. In the manga and novel, however, Candy seems to be desperately in need of Albert and she’s way too attached to him by never wanting to leave his side. She couldn’t even bear living in Chicago anymore after Albert’s revelation as WAA. Candy was in desperate need for support and that’s why she took flight and sought refuge back at the orphanage. In the anime, however, Candy seems to temporarily return to the orphanage as a form of “vacation” and clear her mind a bit until she resumes her job and other goals she may have.

                In conclusion, Candy is much more independent and free-willed in the anime where she has no qualms in living and standing on her own two feet without using Terry, Albert or anyone else as an emotional crutch.

              • Ms Puddle says:

                Hello @Anita, I personally feel that the fact Nagita sensei had deliberately chosen to make Anohito ambiguous was a wrong move, and because of this, she could not write much about Candy’s status in her 30s, like whether she had a career or a mother or both. We only know where Candy lived, and it seems she was quite well off. That said, it’s more likely that Anohito was Albert rather than Terry, because the latter couldn’t have afforded such a living standard.

                Did the translations give you the impression that Candy felt ‘complete’ because she lived with the man she loved? Or was it an interpretation? Yes, Candy did define happiness that way, but that Japanese word is more about contentment rather than “being happy”.

                Anyway, I have digressed. I also wished Nagita sensei could have written more about Candy’s life in her present.

            • Ms Puddle says:

              You’re welcome, @DreamCatcher, although I think there might be some misunderstandings.

              Candy simply said she wanted to be more helpful to the teachers because the orphanage was full of kids. This was not related to Miss Pony’s health issues in the prologue, if I’m not mistaken. In other words, to be more helpful/useful wasn’t just visiting, but staying for a long time as a helper.

              There are times in life when one has to make a tough choice, and a decision is often made based on priorities.

              I believe Candy was married to Anohito (otherwise, imagine the deep anguish she would have caused her foster mothers, who were devoted Catholics). Hence, Candy had her responsibilities and a role to play as someone’s wife (she might even be a mother herself).

              About living with the man she loved, I thought that was Candy’s definition of loving someone and being content? It doesn’t necessarily mean that was her ultimate goal in life.

              Just my two cents. 😉

              • DreamCatcher says:

                It’s quite clear in the novel that Candy means that she wants to stay by her lover’s side even though Ms Pony is ill. As mentioned previously, Ms Pony is more than a mother to Candy because she treated her even better and with greater love than many biological mothers. The same goes for Sister Lane.

                If your mother was ill, would you prefer staying with your lover than travelling back home to see her? What would you think if your partner ever made you choose between him/her and your mother?

                I’ll provide an answer which is based on a personal experience but I won’t burden you with the details. When my husband and I were abroad for our studies and then later on for work, at some point, I received news about my mother being ill. Without further ado, my husband and I made all the necessary arrangements in order for us to travel back home until her situation stabilized. If we had kids at the time, we would have arranged for one of us (presumably my husband) to stay at home (abroad) whilst I travel back to check up on my mother. This is what any offspring would do for their parent and the same had occurred with almost all my colleagues who have faced similar circumstances.

                Take note that I also had to cross an ocean in order to travel back home. Apparently, international travel is more convenient nowadays than in the 1930s, however, me and most women have far more serious obligations and an actual profession rather than being a happy little housewife at home just like Candy. Even though modern-day people have loads of responsibilities, they still manage to squeeze in some time for their loved ones. The bottom-line is that Candy could have had the decency to visit and support Ms Pony but, as usual, she placed her feelings and desires first. When it comes to tending to her lover, Candy has a one track mind.

                Concerning your comment about Candy having kids or a job, I seriously doubt she has any of the those, otherwise, Nagita would have dropped some kind of hint in the novel. Based on what’s in the text and not on conjecture, there is absolutely no reference to Candy and her lover having kids. There is also no indication of Candy being pregnant or having a job. If Nagita wanted her readers to know that Candy had kids or a job (or both), she would have specified it.

                The same goes for Candy’s marital or single status. If Nagita wanted her readers to conclude that Candy is married, there would have been some form of indication. However, there is no textual evidence to back up this claim. Just because Ms Pony and Sister Lane are devout Catholics, doesn’t’ mean that Candy and her lover will follow suit. Besides, Candy didn’t do the “Christian thing” in supporting Ms Pony during her illness, and her past actions had contradicted many so-called “Christian” or religious tactics, namely, her decision to live with an attractive young man with whom she was neither married nor engaged. Such practices were completely unheard of in the previous centuries, especially within religious communities. Candy’s relationship and cohabitation with Albert is far more revolutionary and anti-Christian than all the lame so-called “rebellious” stunts Terry had pulled back at St Paul’s in London.

                It’s ironic that some fans consider Terry to be rebellious teenager but he turned out to be a conservative and conventional adult who performed traditional Shakespearean plays and without any resistance submitted to dumping Candy and staying by Susanna’s side.

                Candy and Albert, however, kept on breaking all the social values and stereotypes by living together even though they were not married. If anyone is truly rebellious, it’s Albert who had the courage to leave his wealth behind and head off for a new life in Africa. However, he had a strong sense of responsibility by returning home when he received news about the outbreak of WWI.

                Both Candy and Albert are much more rebellious and unconventional than Terry but Albert has a stronger sense of responsibility than Candy as well as mustering logical reasoning. Albert also knows how to control his emotions and not be governed by them as Candy always is. This is why I found it odd that Candy’s lover would ever coerce Candy into not visiting Ms Pony in the USA. Having re-read the text though it’s quite clear that it was Candy’s decision to refrain from travelling to the USA and not her lover’s.

                I’ll end this comment by specifying that one does not have to abide to social norms and religious institutions in order to be religious. For example, Candy and Albert could be religious (in other words, have their own personal faith and set of moral values) but refuse to adhere to the various tenets or dogmas of established organized religions. It wouldn’t be the first time Candy and Albert broke the rules and defied social pressure and I doubt it would be their last.;-)

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Hello @DreamCatcher, I’m not entirely certain that Candy would rather stay in the UK even when Miss Pony was seriously ill. I suppose that paragraph you wanted me to check was about why Candy didn’t go back to help at the orphanage. 🤔

                  That said, I have to check the details again just to be sure. 😉 Thanks for sharing your personal experience though, my friend. I hope your mother turned out all right back then?

                  Yes you’re right that Candy and Albert did break social norms. Yet, that wasn’t because they loved each other and couldn’t wait to start living together under the same roof. Besides, their relationship had remained platonic, and they pretended to be siblings to their neighbours to avoid any unnecessary troubles. To me that’s not the same as how we define cohabitation nowadays.

                  I believe Candy was married also because, if I’m not mistaken, birth control back then wasn’t well developed yet, and neither Albert nor Terry (or whoever Anohito was) would want any illegitimate child. However, you’re right that it wasn’t clear in CCFS if Candy had become a mother. 😐

                  Thanks again, DreamCatcher, for sharing your thoughts with us.

                • DreamCatcher says:

                  Just to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, I had never mentioned anything about Candy preferring the UK to the USA. What I had actually stated was that Candy wanted to be by her lover’s side all the time even if that meant not visiting Ms Pony during her illness. The country of residence is irrelevant because all that matters to Candy is being with and tending to her lover. With that being said, “anohito” and Candy could be living in Siberia, the Sahara Desert or Patagonia, yet, Candy would still prefer being with her lover than paying a visit to see if Ms Pony is alright.

                  Although Candy has quite a few positive traits, this specific aspect of her character which has to do with her utmost submissiveness as traditional housewife material is something I refuse to stand by and defend. This is one of the main reasons why modern-day women cannot relate or identify with such patriarchal “wifey-material” as Candy. Although TOEI tried to modernize Candy a bit, Nagita turned her into an even more subservient creature in her novel. In the beginning Candy would run after Anthony, then it was Terry and later on it was Albert. Her neediness when it comes to being protected by men and tending to them in return is rather nauseating and cheesy to say the least.

                  Moreover, I had never mentioned anything about Candy and Albert being lovers during their cohabitation at the Magnolia estate. What I had stated was that Candy and Albert made a decision to live together which was completely revolutionary but also unacceptable in the early 20th century. It makes no difference that they weren’t lovers because what matters is their decision and how this reflected among the members of their society. During that time, it was utterly inappropriate and scandalous for a young woman and young man to live together whether they were just friends or not. Let’s not forget that Candy got kicked out of her job and had become the recipient of loads of gossip because of this decision. It’s not the first time Candy had got “slut-shamed” by society as it had happened during her relationship with Anthony and then Terry.

                  Regarding your theory about Candy being married, neither Terry nor Albert have ever placed any form of importance on social norms and etiquettes, whether it be religion, marriage, social status, etc. I agree with you that it’s most certain that neither Terry nor Albert would have ever abandoned Candy if she got pregnant but their demonstration of love and devotion does not necessarily have to be manifested via matrimony. Besides, Terry had never mentioned that he would marry the woman he loved but that he would never abandon her as his father had done to his mother. In turn, Albert had also made it clear that he wanted Candy to be happy and based on the novel, marriage never seemed to be in Candy or Albert’s priority. To reiterate, Candy had specified that happiness (or contentment) means being with the one you love. There’s no mention of marriage or kids.

                  There is an attempt by both the Terry fans and the Albert fans to “domesticate” their favourite male character by ascribing attributes which are not indicative of them. Based on Nagita’s story, Terry and Albert are akin to “wild” animals and each is a “king” of his own realm; Terry is the tiger and Albert is the lion. Both the tiger and the lion are apex predators and comfortably reside on the top of the food chain, LoL. Jokes aside though, Terry and Albert are far too restless to ever be tied down and the fact that Nagita refrains from offering any scintilla of information that Candy is married with kids could be a vital clue that “anohito” is one of those two unconventional male characters. Candy, however, appears to not only accept but embrace this “wild” side to “anohito” and that’s why she seems to be perfectly fine as assuming the role of the lover whether in wedlock or not.

                  Again, these are all just theories. Let’s take into consideration that this novel is far too vague and the readers should not take anything for granted because in this story, anything goes..

                  By the way, thanks for asking about my mother and your concern is very kind. For the time-being, she’s doing fine.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Hello @DreamCatcher, so glad to hear your mother is doing fine for the time being. 🙏

                  About Candy’s not visiting Miss Pony, I re-read the prologue just in case I have missed anything. Like you, I also think it’s very strange for Candy not visiting, especially since she had been feeling anxious for several weeks already.

                  That said, I personally would give Candy or Anohito the benefit of the doubt. Please don’t get me wrong, DreamCatcher. I’m not arguing with you nor am I asking you to agree with me. 🤗 I just like to point out that it’s out of character, and Candy said she wanted to take care of Miss Pony herself, but the vast distance was seemingly a major factor.

                  I have a feeling this is the author’s oversight because it implies Candy’s fault for staying where she was. The part in the beginning of Section 2 was not helping either, because that makes Anohito appear selfish too; whether he was Albert or Terry, that was also out of character.

                  At any rate, IMHO, the beginning of Section 2 was not necessarily linked to the incident in the prologue. As mentioned before in my previous replies, it was about why Candy wasn’t helping at the orphanage even when it was overflowing with kids.

                  I think the author should have provided a reasonable explanation why Candy wasn’t visiting Miss Pony when she was ill. Or the author could have clarified that Candy was ready to leave but received a timely reply from Sister Lane, etc. Undoubtedly, Candy had the intention and was extremely worried. Besides, both Miss Pony and Sister Lane knew Candy sorely missed them and the Pony’s Home. However, Miss Pony’s short note may be a hint, that Candy had already planned to visit them, because Miss Pony clearly expected to see her beloved Candy again.

                  Anyway, just my two cents.

                • DreamCatcher says:

                  Thank you for your concern and kind words, Ms Puddle.

                  Involving the CCFS, the textual evidence is clear that Candy did not visit Ms Pony during her illness because she preferred to stay at home and tend to her partner. It’s really as simple as that. I could agree with you that this could have been Nagita’s lapse in the overall narrative but this is reliant only upon conjecture (or perhaps wishful thinking) and not on what has already been printed in the text. Like you, I also find it completely out of character that Candy and her partner (if he’s Terry or Albert, that is) would make such a callous decision but let’s face it-it’s there in the text and there are no significant alterations with regard to the aforesaid translations. As I don’t speak Japanese, however, I can’t verify whether this is the way in which it’s printed in the original language. Based on what you’ve explained so far though, there seems to be no major change in meaning or storyline. By all means, do correct me if I’m wrong.

                  As for possible errors in the CCFS, I consider that Nagita’s novel is riddled with loads of inaccuracies, inconsistencies and major “loopholes” in the overall plot. This story lacks congruence and I seriously wonder what on earth were Nagita’s editors paid for doing and I am referring to the Japanese ones. It would be unfair to criticize the editors of the translated CCFS because their translators had no other alternative but to translate the material at hand.

                  With that being said, the list comprising the errors and inconsistences in the CCFS is rather long. I’ll elaborate on this some other time as I wouldn’t want to digress. We’re talking about a range of minor errors to severe lapses as this novel is infested with mistakes in historical and literary figures (as well as literary characters), historical events, dates, character development, as well as immense flaws in coherency and congruence. IMO, the arguments within the fandom are absolutely meaningless because the root or crux of the problem has nothing to do with Nagita offering possible “clues” or providing “cryptic” message but predominately with her own narrative lapse and ignorance.

                  This is the precise moment where her editors should have assessed her work more carefully but none of that appears to have taken place. This novel seems to be a result of sloppy work done in haste with no subsequent editing and revision. It’s not surprising that all serious and well-established publishing companies worldwide have utterly ignored-if not disregarded-this lamentable excuse of a novel. No wonder so many people have dispensed with it and dismiss it as a “pseudo-novel”. Nagita kept on whining about wanting to have the freedom to write a story about Candy from scratch without the confines of the previous manga and anime corporations. Yet, when she finally acquired full control over her intellectual property, she simply wrote a complete replica of the previously published 1970s manga and novel with the exception of some minor additions (or omissions) which in total are less than a couple of pages long.

                  Some delusional fans keep on yapping that the CCFS is a story about Candy written by Nagita anew but that’s just empty rhetoric based on rubbish arguments. In fact, this novel is almost 100% reliant upon the plot and character development of the manga as published back in the 1970s and as already mentioned, there are only minute differences to the older version of this novel. It’s interesting, nonetheless, that Nagita had refrained from mentioning about the existence of the older novel. I wonder whether this was a “lapse” in her memory or whether she had assumed that hardly anyone would know about the older editions of her novel. Had she ever mentioned anything about her 1970s novel in her previous interviews? Do you happen to know, Ms Puddle? So far, I haven’t found any sources where she makes such a mention but I am wondering whether there are sources in Japanese or anything else which may have escaped my notice.

                  I cut a long story short, it seems that Nagita does not have a congruent and valid story nor does she muster the confidence to assert herself and write a decent novel. Instead, she keeps on changing her narrative and contradicting herself over and over again, hence, leading to further confusion and embittered dogfights within the fandom.

                  For my part, I refuse to jump on the bandwagon or dance in her circus as some of her deranged fans; instead, I will continue to pinpoint the errors and flaws to what I have paid for with my hard-earned cash in order to read and study. Even though the nostalgia factor comes strong with the CCFS territory, my critique of this text is and will always be non-partisan.😉

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Hello DreamCatcher, hmmm, to me, the textual evidence in CCFS is Candy had not traveled back to the US, for unknown reasons, while Miss Pony was still ill.

                  I’m far from convinced that the author would intentionally depict her favourite character, Candy, in a negative light right at the beginning of her novel. Assuming Anohito is Albert, the author openly admitted that she admired him, so why would she make him appear selfish? Even Terry would not do that.

                  In short, it’s really odd. 🤔 I agree with you that it was not only the author’s oversight but also the editors’ professional negligence (I’m not sure if I have used this term correctly 😅), as though they had been in a rush to publish. One might argue that they are just humans but nothing should stop them from re-editing and publishing new editions to correct or address the obvious flaws. 🙄

                  About the old novel, sorry I don’t recall either, but from the snippets I have read, the author had actually made some improvements, albeit not many, but these changes are definitely more than two pages. LOL…

                  For example, Candy had the guts to leave Terry when she perceived that Susanna needed him more. This had remained the same in the new novel, but Candy was much less sentimental in her unsent letter to Terry when compared to the old one.

                  The following is only in CCFS. Candy had left Chicago and resided at the orphanage for at least two years before Albert’s confession. After that, their trip to Lakewood likely took place in the following spring, so another year had elapsed. The Lagan’s resort’s grand opening occurred in Chicago instead of Miami, etc. etc.

                • DreamCatcher says:

                  Minor typo detected:

                  To cut a long story short..

                • DreamCatcher says:

                  In the Introduction of Section 2 (Volume 1 for the first edition of Kappalab and Volume 1 for PIKA-but both volumes are unified in the Arechi Manga and second edition of Kappalab), it is clearly stated that Candy is relieved that Ms Pony’s health is not as serious as initially fathomed. Therefore, Candy was fully aware of that Ms Pony was ill.

                  In this section Candy also expresses nostalgia for the orphanage and for Lakewood (in particular, Anthony’s roses). After elaborating a bit on some of her memories, she then describes a dream (or quasi-vision) she had of Anthony where she mentions that characteristic phrase along the lines of happiness being with the one you love. Presumably, this scene is the same in the original Japanese text since there is no difference in the official translations provided. There’s nothing really controversial about it anyway.

                  Shortly after, Candy clearly states that she wishes she could assist Ms Pony but she wants to be by her lover’s side all the time. There is no mention that Candy’s lover did not allow her to leave for the USA but it was undeniably her decision to choose tending to her lover over everything else, even visiting Ms Pony who had treated her better than most mothers. This is crystal clear in all the official translations of this novel. If it’s different in the original Japanese text, then feel free to elaborate as any form of discrepancy would be interesting.

                  As for Nagita’s intentions surrounding the CCFS characters, I am not in her head to know what she wanted to do. What I’ve got in front of me are the printed texts, and as explained above, my focus is on the textual evidence and not conjecture. Perhaps Nagita does not find any fault in a woman being servile and preferring to tend to her lover on a 24/7 basis. Therefore, Candy’s decision in being a lady-in-waiting to her lover could be perfectly fine with the author. Who knows?

                  Alternatively and as already explained, there is a possibility that all this mess is based on sloppy writing and unprofessional editing. As I’m not aware of the Japanese publishing company which edited Nagita’s work, I don’t know whether it’s a reputable publishing house or not. The editing of this work, however, suggests it’s not.

                  Last but not least, the new novel has minimal alterations from the older versions and plot-wise, it’s almost identical to the manga. Changing some wording and re-arranged a few paragraphs doesn’t render this newer novel as anything anew or afresh. In reality, it’s regurgitated material with some extra layering here and there. Nothing more and nothing less.

                  And by the way, the so-called changes made are actually not 2 pages long (A4 size paper, 12 size font , Arial or Times New Roman) but even less.😉

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Hi @DreamCatcher, to answer your questions, about the beginning of Section 2, interestingly, in the Japanese version it didn’t say anything about “Miss Pony’s health issues were not as serious as initially fathomed”… It just said that after receiving the happy news about Miss Pony’s recovery, Candy could not entirely contain the ripples in her heart.

                  But based on the prologue, we readers know that Candy was aware of Miss Pony’s illness, and that Candy was extremely worried and wanted to take care of Miss Pony herself. But this is not in Section 2. That’s why I agree with you that it was strange that Candy’s actions were contradictory to her wishes (in the prologue).

                  Back in section 2, Candy said “I want to pay a visit to Pony’s home” in present tense, but it was caused by nostalgia, which she found suffocating.

                  Some passages later, Candy mentioned Pony’s home was expanded and reconstructed, etc. “Now the orphanage is also overflowing with kids, the same as before.”

                  I’ve already told you my own translation for what comes next, if you remember. Candy said “I want to be more helpful/useful to Miss Pony (and Sister Lane).” This page might give you some ideas of the verb that Candy used,

                  https://eikaiwa.dmm.com/uknow/questions/32182/

                  As I’ve already explained in my initial reply, in Japanese, Sister Lane’s name was omitted, but it’s very common when it’s understood, sort of like “Miss Pony and the other teacher(s)” or “Miss Pony teachers” (there’s no English equivalent but definitely it means Miss Pony and at least one other teacher). In this case, it’s possible Miss Pony and Sister Lane were not the only teachers.

                  Therefore, this passage in Section 2 itself, is about helping out at the orphanage as an assistant (long term), not as a visitor to help out. At least this is my interpretation. 😉

                  I haven’t read the entire old novel, so I don’t know for sure how different CCFS is compared to that. However, I did read the final chapter of the old novel, which is similar to the epilogue in CCFS. But for sure approximately 1/2 of that has changed, so to me, the changes of the novel are more than two pages lol. 😆

                • DreamCatcher says:

                  Two typos, this time. LOL

                  1. Candy was fully aware that Ms Pony was ill..

                  2. Changing some wording and re-arranging a few paragraphs..

                  If there are more, just ignore them.

                • Lynn says:

                  Did a bit of digging myself and @DreamCatcher has a point. Again, my sources are the translated novels but they are official and fully endorsed by Keiko Nagita, nonetheless.
                  I’ll agree with both of you, @Ms Puddle and @Dreamcatcher, that it’s rather odd that Candy would behave in such a way. While the reasons for her behaviour and the author’s intentions are unknown, it’s spelled out in the novel that Candy misses her home in the US and Ms Pony but she doesn’t want to leave Anohito either. The bottom line is that she made her decision and it was the latter of the two. Plain and simple.
                  Innumerable are the interpretations to Candy’s choice but they remain theories. That’s all. I’ll just name a few which come to mind but take note that they’re nothing else but theories:
                  a) As already and widely mentioned, it could just be another loophole in the story and(or) lapse deriving from the author or both. It’s not as if it’s the first time the reader encounters a moot point in this poorly-written and horrendously vague novel.
                  b) Maybe Keiko Nagita believes that North-Americans are more individualistic in mentality and don’t form strong ties with their loved ones. In some of her interviews, Nagita had stressed wanting to create North American and British characters rather than Japanese. Stereotyping could go both ways and there’s a chance Nagita has misconstrued, if not totally misunderstood, North-American and British mentalities. There are some stereotypes floating around that North-Americans and Northern-Europeans are more cold-hearted and detached from family and friends, as opposed to Mediterranean, Middle-Eastern and Asian folks who tend to be more family-oriented and “passionate”. Again, this is all stereotypical nonsense but sadly quite a few people are dumb enough to believe them as true. Personally, I’ve come across some morons who think that my partner and I are “frigid and intimidating” just because we’re tall, blonde and grey-eyed. LMAO
                  c) The author had also mentioned in her latest interview that Candy is far from perfect and that her character could be off-putting to some people. She’s definitely not a villain but her spontaneity and full-blown emotiveness in tandem with her complete lack of rationality could lead her to some dodgy decisions. Even though Candy is a kind and loving character, her head is almost non-existent when it comes to her dominating heart. We already have some indication in the novel that Candy puts the man she loves above everything else so maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that she’s placed Anohito as the ultimate pinnacle of her life. Notice how there’s never any mention of Candy loving her job or her children. Nagita could have salvaged the situation by adding a brief description that Candy couldn’t visit Ms Pony because she had to take care of her children or she was pregnant or possibly due to her demanding job as a nurse having to run numerous shifts. Nagita could have easily dropped a line or two but she didn’t and nobody is in the position to explain why. What remains is that Nagita has either deliberately or inadvertently created a main character whose is insufferably needy and dependant on a man, whoever he may be. Adding further insult to injury, Nagita isn’t placing the onus of responsibility on the man (Anohito) but on Candy, placing her in a not too positive light. It’s not surprising that Candy does not constitute a role-model for young women even though she’s pure and kind. Being needy and way too emotional are massive drawbacks when it comes to admiring someone and deploying them as a role-model to emulate.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Thank you @Lynn for sharing your thoughts and insights with us. Like you said, Candy undoubtedly missed her teachers and the orphanage, but she decided to stick with Anohito, which is fine in normal circumstances. Different people have different priorities.

                  However, no obvious reason was provided why Candy did not visit Miss Pony when she was ill. I couldn’t agree more with you, Lynn, that the author could have just dropped a line or two to explain why.

                  In Japanese or Chinese culture, people are fully expected to respect and honour their parents or whoever has helped them in the past. In Candy’s case, Miss Pony belongs to both categories. Therefore, it’s unfathomable, if not unforgivable, Candy would rather stay in the UK than cross the ocean to visit Miss Pony because of her lover.

                  In other words, this essentially puts both Candy and her lover in a negative light. Candy might have made the final decision but her lover could have persuaded her otherwise.

                  That’s why I figure it’s the author’s fault, though unintentional. Like you said, it’s one of the loopholes in the story.

                  Sigh… 😐

                • DreamCatcher says:

                  Thank you for your response.

                  Since Ms Pony managed to make a complete recovery, fortunately, her health condition wasn’t as serious as initially thought. In the novel it’s clearly mentioned that there were fears for Ms Pony’s health and given her old age, it would have been considerate for Candy to visit her for all those reasons explained in our discussion. But she didn’t and this has raised quite a few eyebrows.

                  Anyway, the common denominator between the original Japanese text and the subsequent official translations is that Candy is needy and 100% dependent on her lover (be it Albert, Terry, or anybody else) to such an extent that she would prefer to mope around at home feeling sorry for herself for not being “useful” to Ms Pony rather than taking the initiative of travelling to the USA to support that fine old lady who took better care of her than most biological mothers. No point in repeating myself here. The text “speaks” for itself. Whether Candy’s nonsensical response was a product of the author’s or publishers’ lapse or lack of conducting decent editing remains a theory for the time-being and nothing more than that.

                  Thank you again for your response and insight.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Hello DreamCatcher, while I completely agree with you about Candy’s not visiting Miss Pony is something to be frowned upon, I still don’t think the reason has been provided.

                  In addition, Candy wasn’t moping around feeling sorry for not being useful to Miss Pony and the other teacher(s). Did you get this idea from the translations? 🤔

                  Because in Japanese it was not written in any sort of dejected tone (no strong feelings either). She just stated the fact that she could not help because she was with Anohito, and that was it.

                  Come to think of it, unless Candy found a lifelong partner in that same village, she would have to make a choice whether to stay at the orphanage to continue helping out. The day she decided to leave the orphanage for Anohito, whether he was Albert or Terry, Candy would have to relocate. Apparently, Candy had Miss Pony and Sister Lane’s blessings. Hence, what Candy said in this particular passage wasn’t necessarily about why she remained at the UK. It was about her being unable to help at the orphanage like she used to, because she had moved and lived with Anohito (likely married).

                  As I already said in one of my earlier replies, in Candy’s letter to Captain Brown, Candy was clearly living at the Ardlay’s principal mansion in Chicago then. Not only that, she also invited Captain Brown to visit them (Albert and her, so were they a couple?). If she was merely a guest, how could she invite someone over as though it was her home? If I remember correctly, she mentioned Lakewood as well, which implies she could go there whenever she liked.

                  Anyway, my point is, if Candy had indeed married Anohito, then of course she could not assist the teachers at the orphanage. If you think Candy was being too needy and dependent, then so was Anohito. As I said in my initial reply, that feeling was mutual. To me, they just lived up to the vow “till death do us part”.

                  At any rate, I don’t think this passage is the reason for Candy not visiting Miss Pony. Again, this is just my 2 cents. Let’s agree to disagree 😊🤗

                • Lynn says:

                  The issue with this so-called “novel” is not only this possible oversight or loophole involving Candy and her flawed decision-making; this story as published in the year 2010 is simply a “re-run” of the manga and the previous version of the novel dating back from the 1970s. Those who claim that this newer version constitutes a radical breakthrough or change from the older versions needs to get their heads examined.
                  Based on the storyline and characters, this newer version is heavily reliant on the manga and almost identical to the older versions of the novel, the only significant differences being those very brief (less than a page long) references to Candy’s life in the 1930s. Needless to mention all those eerie similarities to Jean Webster’s “Daddy Long Legs” and Louisa May Alcott’s “Eight Cousins”…
                  There’s one hell of an irony going on at this point and it involves the publishing of Jean Webster’s novels by Arechi Manga because it has attracted the attention of many people to delve deeper and discover that the story of Candy Candy isn’t as original as many of us used to think. For instance, there are many people online discussing these aforesaid aspects by providing compelling arguments which verify that Nagita took far too much material from Webster and Alcott. Some folks have have considered this to be borderline plagiarism and this could also explain why reputable and distinguished publishing companies have not bothered with the Candy Candy story, especially not in English-speaking countries which are well-aware of the popularity of Jean Webster, Louisa May Alcott and Eleanor Porter. Why bother with a story which is merely a conglomeration of the characters deriving from “Daddy Long Legs”, “Eight Cousins” and “Pollyanna” and not publish or read the original novels by their original authors instead? It’s like listening to “Sweet Child o’ Mine”.. Why pay to listen to it being sung by some random “second-hand” source and not purchase the original music by the legit source-Guns N’ Roses instead? It’s like paying to buy “Adidas” of “NIKE” shoes and you end up receiving shoes called “Abibas” or “NICKE”. LOL
                  What makes this whole debacle even more hilarious though are the ways in which some Terrfans got humiliated following the publication of Nagita’s preface to the Arechi Manga translation of Jean Webster’s novels. For years they kept on barking that Jean Webster had never influenced Nagita and that the latter was indifferent to Webster’s novels. That preface, however, written by Nagita where she’s fangirling over Jean Webster and lionizing her novels must have struck those poor old Terrfans as hard as a hammer. Damn, that must have hurt. LMAO

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Hi Lynn, yes I wonder how Terry fans react when reading Nagita sensei’s preface to the DLL Spanish version. Or they might be in denial and decided not to read it at all, like many of them still refused to read the manga version.

                • DreamCatcher says:

                  It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing but to state the situation as it is without confirmation bias and wishful thinking. The text is as it is and the official translations aren’t too different, especially not in meaning.

                  Whether the readers and/or fans want to accept it or not, Candy is not a feminist or independent character. This is the decision of the author and that is that. Furthermore, whether Candy’s lover is needy or not doesn’t alleviate the indisputable fact that Candy is needy and dependant on her lover. There’s nothing positive or progressive about being needy whether as a couple or as a single person.

                  “Death do us part” is nothing more than a Christian phrase used in traditional marriages which, in reality, is seldom ever upheld or taken verbatim (or seriously). Instead, bonds or unions between two people constitute a dynamic unit based on reciprocal interests but without sacrificing the individual aspect. At least this is what a healthy bond or marriage is supposed to be..

                  As for Candy’s decision to be glued to her lover, this is crystal clear in the text and had such a feature been included in the anime and manga, the story of Candy Candy wouldn’t have had a fraction of the popularity it had enjoyed in the previous century. The TOEI animation team was clever and progressive enough to upgrade Candy’s character and make her far more career-driven and independent. None of these two dynamic features exist in the novel, however.

                  In the anime and manga, Candy could be regarded as a modern or modernized resourceful young woman. Yet, in the novel the author decided (for reasons of her own) to reduce and downgrade Candy to a mere simplistic and needy housewife waiting for her lover to bring home the bacon.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  DreamCatcher, I meant to say we are not in agreement with how we interpret that particular passage, but that’s fine with me. Candy was not a feminist IMHO, not even in the anime, but she gained popularity mainly because of her resilience.

                • Anita says:

                  It’s rather odd that Nagita decided to reduce Candy to such a conventional and nondescript role of the ‘little wifey at home’. That’s a steep plunge from the more liberated character known in the aforementioned anime and manga-although Candy appears to have been much more emancipated in the anime.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  I wonder why too, Anita. Candy in her youth honoured her calling in life and became a nurse. Later she continued to work both as a nurse and an assistant to Miss Pony and Sister Lane in CCFS. But what had happened to her during the 1920s had been mysterious and nothing was written about what she did in her 30s either.

                • DreamCatcher says:

                  Thank you for clarifying, @Ms Puddle, and I appreciate your commentary.

                  It goes without saying that Candy is not a feminist character in the novel even though there are some fans trying to make or appropriate her as such. In fact, never had Nagita professed herself to be a feminist nor are any of her female characters, with the exception of Fran Hamilton. As for the anime, one could argue that TOEI created more dynamic characters given the strong wave of feminism during the 1980s. I’ll add that TOEI had also added some female characters which could be regarded as feminist, most notably, Dr Kerry (or Dr Kelly, depending on the dubbing) but she’s not Nagita’s or Igarashi’s creation.

                  If we were to compare the feminist aspect of Candy’s character based on the anime, manga and novel, I would say that she’s by far more “feminist” in the anime but less so in the manga (albeit more than the novel). As for the novel, Candy seems to be completely “divorced” from any form of feminist quality or trait.

                  It’s not surprising that this novel miserably failed in attaining any of the popularity of the anime and manga. I think we all know how it would have gone if the novel had been published on its own without the existence of the anime and manga, beforehand.

                  Whether certain foolish fans want to admit it or not, it’s the appeal and strong nostalgic factor of the anime and manga which provide the infrastructure to this acutely problematic and mundane novel. Without the prior support of the anime and manga, this novel would have collapsed like a deck of cards.

                • Lynn says:

                  I ought to admit that this discussion is really intriguing and the points raised are intelligent. I’ll just specify that I think that @DreamCatcher is right about the novel. Just like most people, I haven’t read the Japanese original but, presumably, we could all agree that the official translations could be regarded as credible sources since they have been endorsed by the author and her agent.
                  Again, I’ll specify that I haven’t read the Japanese text and perhaps there should be the benefit of the doubt that there are some changes-either minute or major-in comparison with the Italian, French and Spanish translations which were published, thereafter.
                  At this point I would like to ask @Ms Puddle if she has read any of the translations. I think it would be a good opportunity because even minor differences in translation could lead to significant changes in meaning.
                  That said, I can also second to @DreamCatcher’s analysis that the translated versions of this novel suggest that Candy’s decision was to remain by her partner’s side even though Ms Pony was ill. This seems to come clear in all the official translations of this novel. Take note that @DreamCatcher is not providing some subjective interpretation but quoting textual evidence as this is actually mentioned in the novel-as officially translated via Kappalab (Italian), PIKA (French) and Spanish (Arechi Manga). Even most fans from both sides of the ‘battlefield’ agree Candy did not want to leave her partner’s side at any cost, and take note that it’s extremely rare to find any point upon which the Tfans and Afans would ever agree on anything. LoL

                • Lynn says:

                  Typo:

                  Arechi Manga (Spanish)

                • DreamCatcher says:

                  Thanks @Lynn. This is exactly my point. I’m not expressing an opinion or interpretation but what is stated in the text itself. I’ll refrain from repeating myself since I have provided such a comprehensive commentary where I clearly draw a line between textual evidence and insight. From there on, it would have been interesting to know whether Nagita has actually read the translated versions of her novel or at least her editors, provided that they are knowledgeable of European languages such as Italian, French and Spanish.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Thanks Lynn and DreamCatcher for your comments and insights. First and foremost, I don’t represent the author nor am I trying to defend her. What I’ve been saying so far is solely my own interpretation, which may be different when compared to all the translators. 😅

                  I haven’t read any of the official translations because I only know the basics of those three languages, thus not having enough skills to read a novel. Besides, I think the original text suffices.

                  I could have been wrong all this time because I’ve never linked this particular passage in Section 2 to the incident described in the prologue – Miss Pony’s illness and Candy’s contradicting behaviour (extremely anxious but not visiting). I might have been heavily influenced by my background and/or upbringing where filial piety is fully expected and upheld, so it’s absolutely inconceivable the author would deliberately write this to put her beloved Candy (or Anohito) in such a negative light. Of course, nobody knows what the author had in mind when she was writing this.

                  Anyway, I must say I was utterly shocked to know that the translations have made the readers think that these two passages are related.

                  In the beginning of Section 2, Candy obviously felt a great nostalgia for her childhood till her early adulthood. When she mentioned Miss Pony’s recovery or how she wanted to take care of Miss Pony, she wrote in the past tense. This is not the case when Candy said she wanted to be more helpful to Miss Pony and the other teacher(s). Note that, Candy wasn’t saying she wanted to help Miss Pony alone; Candy said Miss Pony and the other teacher(s).

                  Hence, to me, it wasn’t Candy’s justification for why she had not paid a visit, especially because there’s no slightest indication Candy was feeling sad or sorry about not being able to help more (longer / further). She wrote all this in the present tense in a matter-of-fact tone. There’s no sense of yearning either. Nothing like “as much as I want to help but…”

                  A few sentences back Candy was talking about Slim, and the building in his drawing was the orphanage before the reconstruction. Candy then mentioned Granduncle William and the land, and that Pony’s home was overflowing with kids just like before (the same as always). My interpretation is that Candy made a decision a long time ago that although the teachers would always be busy with kids, Candy wasn’t able to help much further because she would relocate to live with Anohito (Chicago or New York, whoever he was).

                  Just my 2 cents, as usual.

                • DreamCatcher says:

                  Thank you for your comment, Ms Puddle.

                  Filial piety is indicative of many cultures and not restricted within only a few. From there on, there are innumerable contributing factors which contribute to the development of one’s character, apart from upbringing, of-course.

                  For my part, I’m neutral with regard to Nagita, the CCFS and this entirely ludicrous “anohito” controversy. Whether this “mystery man” is Terry or Albert is fine with me. He could be the milkman, the Yeti or Chubaka for all I care..

                  The purpose of my comment was simply to point out the possible discrepancies between the official translations and the original Japanese text concerning Candy’s nonsensical behaviour. In stark contrast to most of us, you have the advantage of knowing Japanese and thus being able to study the actual source. No matter how authoritative the translation, meaning and nuance will irrevocably be lost or distorted to a certain extent. It’s interesting that the translators of Arechi Manga admitted that their version constitutes not a verbatim but a “creative” translation (whatever that’s supposed to mean..). Yet, in this particular section, the Spanish translation (Arechi Manga) is almost identical to the Italian and French, as edited and published by Kappalab and PIKA, respectively.

                  Therefore it’s more likely that we have been reading different meaning in the otherwise same novel due to the fact that you have studied the original and I (as many others) the officially translated editions. As the original source in its original language is always the most credible, apparently, let’s just focus on what has been stated there and according to your commentary, it is not clear whether Candy had made the decision to stay by her lover’s side at the expense of visiting Ms Pony. In other words, the readers do not get a clear picture whether Candy preferred being with her lover over everything and everyone else, even those she loves most dearly. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt irrespective of how these sections have been translated so far.

                  However, I will bring to light notable examples of Candy putting those she loves and respects aside in order to pursue the man she loves. A first example was her refusal to return to Ms Pony’s home even though she was severely mistreated by the Lagans. So intense was her love for Anthony that she preferred continue being the recipient of abuse to informing Ms Pony and Sister Lane of her dire situation. Secondly, Candy chose to sacrifice her academic future in London in order to chase after Terry in the USA. She was well-aware that her decision would disappoint many people who love and support her. Third and arguably the most important, Candy sacrificed her social standing and, above all, her career in order to live with Albert and be by his side all the time. Back in those days, making such a decision was profoundly radical and utterly scandalous which led to her even losing her own job. Yet, she risked and lost so much in order to be with Albert. Her love for Albert wasn’t sexual at the time but it sure was intense and perhaps the most intense and important of all her feelings of love for a man.

                  Taking the above into consideration, it wouldn’t be all too strange for Candy to prefer being with the man she loves even if that means not tending to Ms Pony during her illness. Candy had put aside those she cares about-even her own self-for the man she loves whether that male character be Anthony, Terry or Albert.

                  Perhaps the author wanted to make this clear in her novel that Candy was not driven by social norms or morals but by her own emotive needs and desires.

                  Just some “food” for thought.;-)

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Very interesting comment, DreamCatcher. Thanks for your understanding. 🤗

                  Yes, in the original text I don’t detect any correlation between the two passages. Again, I could have been wrong all along 😅, but in the prologue as well as Section 2 Candy used the past tense whenever she mentioned Miss Pony’s illness, recovery, or her wish to nurse Miss Pony back to health. Yet, when Candy mentioned she wanted to be more helpful, it was written in the present tense and her tone was neutral; though Candy had the intention to help, nothing in the entire paragraph hints of yearning, sadness, sorrow or regret. Thus, to me, it wasn’t an explanation or a justification for any of her recent actions.

                  But Candy was never perfect. She made mistakes, as described in the concrete examples you have provided. Yet, when Candy was working for the Lagans, she didn’t go back to the orphanage not only for Anthony, but it could be because she didn’t want to burden the orphanage? For example, Candy did not have to go to Mexico. She could have escaped and returned to Pony’s Home.

                  Yet, I don’t have strong opinions on this. Because Candy did eventually return soon after Anthony’s death. About her impulsive action to chase after Terry, she was just a teenager, influenced by her hormones lol. But unlike Annie who did nothing else but cling to Archie, Candy at least followed her heart and became a nurse. About Candy’s feelings for Albert, it was related to her inexplicable desire to reciprocate his kindness mainly because he was her lifesaver – ONJIN, fyi https://nihongomaster.com/japanese/dictionary/word/17221/onjin

                  Anyway, DreamCatcher, I agree with you that Candy is often driven by her own emotive needs or desires. But Candy did not always chase after men, because she was the one who decided to break up with Terry. Also, Candy did go back to help at the orphanage for three years or more. Since her discovery of Albert’s identity, she had been back to the orphanage for possibly two years before his confession. Then their Lakewood day trip took place likely the following spring. Only the author knows how much longer Candy stayed helping at the orphanage / clinic after that day trip.

                  Again, this is merely my own interpretation. 😉

                • DreamCatcher says:

                  Meant to say that there are “many complex factors contributing to the development of one’s character..”.

                  If there are typos, please ignore them and thanks again.

                • DreamCatcher says:

                  Thank you for the clarifications provided, @Ms Puddle.

              • Anita says:

                Hello @Ms Puddle and @DreamCatcher. Thanks again for your insights.

                In regard to @Ms Puddle’s question, the official translations read that Candy is happy being with the man she loves or happiness to her means being with the man she loves. The words used in the official translations do not correspond to ‘contentment’ but ‘happiness’. It’s interesting that it’s different in the Japanese translation based on @Ms Puddle’s comment.

                I agree with @Ms Puddle that Albert has a much stronger chance of being ‘anohito’ but as @DreamCatcher has astutely explained, readers ought to focus exclusively on the textual evidence and there is no evidence in Nagita’s novel to confirm the identity of ‘anohito’. The author has allowed the readers to assume the identity of ‘anohito’ as being Albert or Terry or anybody else. I would not rule out the possibility of ‘anohito’ being someone Candy met and fell in love with later on in her life. Perhaps he’s a doctor who found work at Dr Martin’s new clinic or maybe Candy met him in Chicago. We really don’t know and neither the Terry-fans nor the Albert-fans are in a position of authority to determine the identity of ‘anohito’. The blunt reality here is that Nagita has thrown her readers-both the Tfans and the Afans-under the bus and appears to even enjoy the emetic bickering within the fandom. Whilst the fans are fighting like rabid dogs on social media over mere fictional characters, Nagita is laughing her way to the bank..

                There’s a valid point that @DreamCatcher has made and it involves the ‘rebelliousness’ of the main CCFS characters. It’s beyond any shadow of a doubt that Terry turned out to be a dud in many aspects and especially in his ‘rebelliousness’. However, there are quite a few characters who turned out to be true rebels and that’s not only Candy and Albert but also Stear and, most importantly, George. It should be noted that George is one of the unsung heroes of this novel, if not one of the most underrated and undeservingly so. George is by far one of the finest and most awesome characters in this novel. It’s a pity that Nagita had not written more about this fascinating character.

                Resuming to Candy and Albert, I’ll agree that they are both truly rebellious and unconventional. As the story progresses in the novel, the two of them continue to be unconventional and challenge authority, especially Albert when he opposes the Ardlay elders and endorses the relationship and eventual marriage between Archie and Annie. Much to the dismay of the Lagans, Albert also goes against the Ardlays by urging Sarah Lagan to publicly declare Candy’s innocence. It would be quite accurate to regard Albert as a ‘silent rebel’ and usually such ‘dark horses’ are the most intense of reactionaries even if the initially appear as unobtrusive and inconspicuous.

                • Anita says:

                  Typo: “..even if they initially appear as unobtrusive and inconspicuous.”

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Well said, @Anita and @DreamCatcher! I don’t have much to add except to answer Anita’s question about “happiness”. The term in Japanese (borrowed from the Chinese language) is more about “contentment in life” or “being satisfied”. However, it also depends on context, and most of the time the English word “happiness” suffices. Hope this helps! 🤗

                • Anita says:

                  Your analysis has been very helpful and many thanks for that. Translation discrepancies will always arise and Nagita’s novel is definitely not an exception. Nonetheless, all three official translations published by Kappalab, PIKA and Arechi appear to have provided authoritative translations and there are really not too many differences in meaning amongst those three versions. Of-course, there will be some alterations here and there but there is no significant change in meaning as of date.

                  As for the aforementioned terms – ‘happiness’ and ‘contentment’, perhaps the author also meant to use the word ‘bliss’ or its variants. Would this be accurate based on the wording used in the original Japanese text?

                  Regardless of those words, it’s indisputable that Candy felt upbeat and full of optimism in tandem with loads of positivity during her adulthood. She had clearly put Terry in the past where he belonged and focused on enjoying life and anticipating more in the future with Albert. Whilst the readers cannot know for sure whether Candy and Albert tied the knot, what is for sure is that their relationship was neither paternal nor fraternal but heading powerfully towards a strong romantic bond. The love and attraction between Candy and Albert is 100% reciprocal and this has already been confirmed in the novel itself as written by Keiko Nagita and not what certain fans want to believe. No matter how much some desperate fans keep on squealing, Candy had clearly moved on in her life and wanted to start anew with the man she was currently in love with and that’s Albert.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  My sentiments exactly, @Anita! I could not agree more with you! As some of us have mentioned already, if Anohito was Terry, Nagita sensei would have written more about him in section 3 as well as the Epilogue. At least the author should drop some hint about Candy’s missing Terry. But we found none of these in the novel.

                  Above all, Candy’s letter to Captain Brown is a significant clue that she already lived in Ardlay’s principal mansion and replied to Anthony’s father on Albert’s behalf, even inviting Captain Brown to visit them in the near future.

                  About the term 幸せ, it’s interpreted differently based on context, and yes, ‘bliss’ is also one of the possible translations. However, in this case about Candy’s happiness, my interpretation is about the state of her well-being and the fact that she was content.

                • Anita says:

                  Thanks again, @Ms Puddle, for your feedback.
                  It’s without any doubt that the structure of this novel clearly supports the development of the romantic relationship between Candy and Albert. Irrespective of the anonymity and controversy surrounding the identity of ‘anohito’, it cannot be denied that the author placed emphasis and utmost significance to the relationship between Candy and Albert.
                  Whilst Terry is reduced to a mere figment of the past and his character ceases to have a voice of its own after the end of the second section of the novel, the characters of Candy and Albert gain in momentum and thrive throughout this entire story, becoming even more important in the third section and thus culminating via the Epilogue.
                  There is definitely a ‘further on’ regarding the bond between Candy and Albert. Keiko Nagita had mentioned in her interviews that her heart would always beat very fast when writing about Albert and she has reflected this anticipation in her favourite character’s yearning to see Albert again. Even though Candy and Albert struggled to maintain a certain form of formality and etiquette in their letters of correspondence, their mutual desire to see and be with each other again is undeniably intense.
                  Candy’s decision in not wishing to open her diary but give it back to Albert as he had given back his badge to her is also an important element which reveals that their relationship is progressing into a completely different level. Their interaction is not limited to correspondence but it’s interpersonal and becomes even more so as the story unfolds. Those who desperately try to deny the mutual attraction between Candy and Albert are delusional. All intelligent people who muster reading comprehension skills fully understand that the relationship between those two beautiful blondes had begun as a friendship and then developed into a brewing romance during their adulthood. This nuanced relationship is not indicative of naïve and self-destructive adolescent passions but bears the attributes of a sophisticated bond as prominent between emotionally healthy and mature adults demonstrating mutual love and respect.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  I agree with you totally, @Anita! 💯%! Indeed the author did not shy away from making it crystal clear that Terry had no place in Candy’s adult life.

                  There are, of course, some fans out there who think otherwise. I’ve recently come across a couple of them on Twitter, and they are very talented artists, I must say. For example, this one,

                  https://twitter.com/9T6Pav9D2rdzm0U/status/1525220879918960640?t=ruTzzlGy30zn_NCsWkCopA&s=19

                • Anita says:

                  There are many fans from both sides but most of them belong to the previous generations. Most people are completely fed up with this long-term dispute between the Terry&Albert fans. It’s become nauseating and downright boring. This nonsensical feud has undermined any integrity and significance of Nagita’s novel. Nobody is benefiting from this idiotic altercation. Those fans are behaving as if Terry and Albert are real people.

                  Regarding the person you’ve mentioned on Twitter, those drawings are identical to Yumiko Igarashi’s. Needless to mention that this person has ‘morphed’ Terry and Albert’s features, hence, creating an amalgamation of both these characters.

                  Check this one out (there are plenty more examples): https://twitter.com/9T6Pav9D2rdzm0U/status/1525061193484111872/photo/1

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Yes Anita that’s the same artist, and like you, I also think she draws like Igarashi but combined Terry and Albert’s traits. The one I sent you earlier actually reminded me of Albert’s rescue after Candy escaped from Neal’s trap. 😉

                • Anita says:

                  Exactly, and there are also some others where this person has simply appropriated the aforementioned characters by ‘morphing’ Terry’s face onto Albert’s whilst making his hair a bit longer and darker.
                  It’s quite lame, really. It sort of reminds me of what the Italians publishers had done to the manga after its official ending. The Italian continuation of the manga consisted mainly of redrawn illustrations, albeit ascribing them to often entirely different scenes which were irrelevant to the characters and the plot. The only difference is that the Italian publishers’ drawing were very cheap whereas this person is doing a better job in tracing and copy-pasting Yumiko Igarashi’s original work.
                  Another example is the notable scene in the manga (the final scene) where Candy is running towards Albert and he has his arms extended towards her. If you re-check that person’s account, you will see this juxtaposition.
                  Just because it’s fanart doesn’t mean that people won’t notice such blatant copy-paste attempts.

              • Lynn says:

                Folks, this confusion seems to have emerged from the author’s inability to write a meaningful story with coherency and clarifications where required.
                Apparently, nobody in his/her right mind would claim that writers should take their readers by the hand and guide them through each and every step of their narrative; yet, Nagita has gone to the other extreme by leaving everything open to interpretation via the use of insufferably annoying ambiguity infesting the text until the very end.
                Since that’s the case, then Nagita should have paid all of us to write the CCFS. I ought to admit that most of the fanfiction material deriving from CC/CCFS fans – both the Tfans and the Afans – is much better and far more interesting than this sloppy mess produced by Nagita.
                Moreover, there are rumours circulating online that it wasn’t Nagita who had formed the structure to Candy’s story but Igarashi. To clarify, Nagita was the one who created the story about Candy but not as a narrative proper; instead, she only had some scattered bits and pieces of her tales in notes concerning various characters of the CCFS such as Annie, Anthony, Susanna, Terry, Albert, etc. Again, I cannot say if this is just hearsay so I’ll leave it as a mere theory and nothing more than that.
                To reiterate and to avoid any form of misconception, it is an indisputable fact – as legally confirmed – that Nagita is the actual writer of Candy’s story but what circulates online is that Igarashi was entrusted with Nagita’s work (presumably, by the author herself) to organize all those aforesaid bits and pieces and accumulate them into a well-structured narrative which makes sense. It’s sort of what TOEI had done later on, even though major changes were made which Nagita complained in various interviews were not endorsed by her. This situation is far too complicated and it’s not surprising that it ended up in shambles.
                Nevertheless, Nagita had the golden opportunity to start from scratch and write her novel about Candy the way she had always wanted to or at least so she would claim. However, her 2010 novel is merely a replica of the manga with some added snippets of information added sporadically.
                Her excuse that she left the story vague so as not to disappoint the fans is lame and it downright insults the intelligence of her readership. Neither the Tfans nor the Afans deserve to be treated like crap by Nagita and, unfortunately, this is exactly what she’s been doing for quite a while and many fans continue to take this crap from her. It appears that Igarashi had messed with Nagita but then Nagita decided to mess around with her fans in such a nasty way.
                Those who respect themselves and their clientele, whether it be in the field of arts, sciences, etc, ought to focus on demonstrating utmost professionalism and not instigating embittered fights among the fans. What’s even worse is that certain folks are low enough to profit from such disgusting enmities within the fandom and Nagita as well as some of her editors worldwide seem to profit from this filth. It’s a pity that such a beloved story of our collective childhood has been reduced into such a sordid cesspit of online animosity and incessant bickering.

                • Anita says:

                  Unfortunately, Nagita’s decision has brought more harm than good to both her CCFS novel and to the CC community, in general. I agree with you, @Lynn, that Nagita should have written a decent story where there would have been a clear picture as to how Candy evolved as an adult regardless with whom she ends up. On the one hand, I am pleased to read about the ways in which Nagita strengthened the bond between Candy and Albert and offered far greater character development to them but the ambiguous ending has incurred too much bitterness within the CC community. Some fans are acting as if these characters are real people and go as far as to defend them as if they are their beloved which is insane. It would be wise for those fans to develop a sense of understanding in order to differentiate between reality and mere fiction. They should distance themselves from becoming so hypersensitive over fictional characters because what truly matters is the real world and not their weird fetishes over make-believe characters.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Hi Anita, I honestly dislike the ambiguity of Anohito and wish Nagita sensei had written more about Candy as an adult and/or how she ended up with her lifelong partner. What we read in section 3 and the epilogue were merely glimpses of her life.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Hi DreamCatcher and Lynn, I should thank you both for this ongoing discussion. Apparently, my interpretation of the passage in Section 2 is different from all the official translators’ perspectives… 😦

                  The author has primarily left everything regarding Anohito open to interpretation, which I find very frustrating too. That said, I personally feel that this passage in Section 2 was meant to be a clue to Anohito’s identity, that it was his marriage proposal to Candy. In my initial reply to DreamCatcher’s query, I already explained that it was difficult to translate, because the entire phrase, that he wants to be always close to Candy, above all else, was used to describe Anohito. Candy wrote that “now, I also don’t want to leave his side (who has the aforementioned mindset) either”. That implies she left the orphanage for him years ago (thus unable to help the teachers more/longer), but judging from her tone and words, Candy had no regrets.

                  However, while this is meant to convey that they are still very much in love, it ends up tarnishing the image of Candy and Anohito (out of character for both), at least that’s the case in the official translations, which is unfortunate.

                  AFAIK, this is not the only passage that there are discrepancies between the translations and the original text. As Lynn said, there are places in the novel that are too vague.

                  Anyway, I suppose back then the author had her plot and major events clearly written out, but she gave Igarashi her permission to figure out how to present her story. If I remember correctly, Igarashi showed her sketches to the court as her “evidence” to be the author, but the sketches had Nagita’s corrections or comments all over the place. Therefore, this piece of evidence only reinforced Nagita’s authorship.

                • Lynn says:

                  As specified in my comment sent to you previously, Keiko Nagita is without any doubt or dispute the legit author of Candy Candy. This has been confirmed in the court of law in Japan where Nagita has been fully vindicated.
                  However, I do find it odd that this same court has also prohibited any other illustrator to provide drawings for Candy Candy apart from Yumiko Igarashi (if the author also agrees), at least this is what appears to be the official verdict.
                  The editor of Arechi Manga had announced via his social media platform that it is strictly prohibited by law (presumably referring to the law in Japan) to hire any other illustrator to provide the visuals for the CCFS (or CCHD).
                  On the other hand, Igarashi has been prohibited by law to showcase her Candy Candy-related and themed illustrations. It appears though that she can continue to publicize her artwork provided that it no longer bears any of the names as printed in Keiko Nagita’s texts.
                  Nevertheless, Igarashi continues to advertise her illustrations under different names but they more than resemble her previous illustrations of Candy Candy. It wouldn’t be hyperbolic or outlandish to even claim that they are almost identical.
                  To be honest, I find the court verdict to be unfair against Keiko Nagita. If the claims made by the editor of Arechi Manga are accurate and credible, then the court in Japan may have confirmed Nagita’s status as the legitimate author of Candy Candy but this same court of law has also created an insurmountable obstacle for Nagita to have the right to select a prospective illustrator for her own work.

      • moira78 says:

        Mi permetto di entrare nella vostra lunghissima discussione, che non ho avuto modo di leggere nella sua completezza, ma che affronta alcuni temi per me importanti: il rapporto tra Candy e Albert/Anohito e l’eventuale maternità di Candy. Mi spiego. Ho scritto e continuo a scrivere molte fanfiction fantasiose, leggendo con sommo piacere quelle di Ms Puddle e altre brave autrici. Si tratta di letture possibili, altre alternative, del presente e del futuro di Candy. Ma in quelle duemila pagine, Nagita ci fa sapere che spiega molte cose, inclusi eventi fino alla seconda guerra mondiale: ora, siccome pare proprio che non voglia condividere quelle pagine con noi, mi è venuto in mente un progetto ambizioso e forse al limite dell’impossibile. Unire le forze tra le varie appassionate e autrici per dare a tutti i fan (noi incluse), ciò che Nagita ci nega: la storia d’amore mai raccontata, il futuro dei personaggi. Ora, sulla questione di non volersi separare da quella persona neanche per tornare da miss Pony malata, una youtuber italiana molto brava e ferrata ha persino immaginato che si trattasse di un figlio e non del marito. Ciò, proprio perché né Albert, né Terry avrebbero imposto a Candy di restare. Personalmente ritengo plausibile questa ipotesi, anche se un po’ forzata, propendo più per un timore legato ai venti di guerra. Allontanandosi dall’Europa potrebbero non poter più tornare? Era già successo con la Prima Guerra Mondiale, d’altronde e Albert ne aveva subito le conseguenze. Sono sposati? Hanno dei figli? Ammetto che mi sono gettata nell’ignoto e ho scritto un piccolo paragrafo: nel mio immaginario, Albert scopre di non poter avere figli e questo, per assurdo, cementa ancora di più il legame tra lui e Candy e si spingono fino in Scozia per sentire altri pareri medici e infine stabilirsi. Il loro legame diventa così saldo, dovendo restare soli, che Candy non ha cuore di allontanarsi. Ovviamente è la mia ipotesi e non sono neanche certa che fili del tutto. E ora la grande domanda: sarebbe possibile creare uno spazio virtuale, su Facebook, sul blog, ovunque vogliate, per discutere di come sarebbe davvero l’evoluzione e il futuro dei personaggi? E una volta stabiliti i punti fermi scriverla noi questa storia? O è un sogno troppo ambizioso? Ovviamente ognuno parteciperebbe con i suoi tempi, io stessa ho una famiglia di cui occuparmi, ma sarebbe come un sogno… che ne dite?

        • Sarah says:

          Ottima idea! Grazie, @Moira78, per la condivisione.🙏

        • Michelle says:

          Many thanks for your intelligent commentary and your proposal sounds intriguing.

          Best Regards!

        • Ms Puddle says:

          Grazie @moira78 ☺️🤗 Excellent idea! However, I’m so sorry that I won’t have time to join this project. I’m barely able to keep this blog updated. Wishing you all talented ladies loads of fun! 💪🤗

        • Gabriella says:

          Hello @moira78, your idea seems to be very interesting as there are so many topics to discuss about the CCFS. Keep us posted!

  3. Michelle says:

    Great story, Ms Puddle! You’re an amazing story-teller!

  4. Corinne MESSEANT says:

    Très beau fanart j adore😍 et ce nouveau chapitre annonce un tournant dans l’histoire😉 hâte de lire la suite…portez vous bien 😘

    • Ms Puddle says:

      Merci beaucoup @Corinne MESSEANT 😍 Thanks for reading, and what a delight to hear that you like my latest fanart <3 Best wishes to you too!

  5. Elena says:

    Very much enjoyed reading this new chapter of yours, Ms Puddle.
    Hope you are doing fine and coping with all the chaos permeating the real world.
    The global concern revolving the Russian invasion and war against Ukraine is undeniable and unites all rational minds which want an end to all this as well as eventually bringing the warmongers responsible for all these crimes against humanity to justice.

    • Ms Puddle says:

      Thank you @Elena for your kind feedback on my latest update! :* The same best wishes to you too, and indeed it’s crazy out there. The news about the Russian invasion are depressing, and a certain leader’s hunger for victory is alarming. Evidence of war crimes is undeniable, but what will happen next?

      • Michelle says:

        Unfortunately, the future seems to be bleak as this war will most probably not end anytime soon. Even if it does end soon, irreversible and irreparable damage has already been incurred, especially to those immediately and directly affected by this slaughter.

  6. moira78 says:

    Che bella sorpresa trovare l’aggiornamento questo sabato mattina! Noto con piacere che forse (e dico forse) stai dando a Wallace e Patty una possibilità… sbaglio? Ovviamente sta a loro decidere e conoscersi. Chissà… Adoro quando Albert sogna Candy e sembra imbarazzato! Un piccolo incidente con il tè sembra averli riavvicinati un poco, ma se vanno avanti con gli equivoci la faccenda diventa lunga! Che testoni, dovrebbero solo parlare chiaramente, ma sarebbe troppo facile e io combino di peggio nelle mie storie, poveretti XD Grazie di cuore per questa bella storia, mi intriga sempre di più! Al prossimo aggiornamento!

    • moira78 says:

      Ah, dimenticavo! Bellissimo il disegno di Candy, davvero un bell’omaggio per il suo compleanno! Adoro il tuo tratto!

    • Ms Puddle says:

      Grazie mille @moira78!! I won’t say much about what’s next but many thanks for catching up. :* <3 I laughed when I read that in your own stories you do something similar to Albert and Candy. 😀 Writers can be cruel, haha...

  7. Lynn says:

    Hello @Ms Puddle!

    Awesome chapter and your new artwork is even more fab. Candy’s eyes are beautiful and you’ve nailed it with the selection of hues.

    As for Candy and Albert, certain moronic fans (fortunately, they’re not many of them) keep on yapping that their age difference is ‘huge’ even though it’s only a decade. In the past, the age difference between couples was much greater and the author of the CCFS-Keiko Nagita-keeps on stressing (much to the dismay of those aforementioned moronic fans) that Albert looks tremendously youthful and Candy has no misgivings in reiterating this statement in the novel as she finds Albert to be handsome, fresh-faced and intelligent.

    Needless to mention that in our modern times, the age difference between couples is often much greater; there are also many cases where women are much older than their partner or spouse. In the past, it was a taboo for a woman to court or marry a man younger than her but nowadays there are many women who date or marry someone who is much younger than them. Provided that the relevant parties comprise consenting adults, it is perfectly alright for a woman or man to court and/or marry someone much older or much younger than them (again, as long as they are legally consenting adults). For example, in the USA, Canada and UK, there are loads of women who marry men who are over a decade younger than them and this is just fine. No double standards here. If it’s alright for a woman or man in the real world to court and/or marry someone a decade or more younger (or older) than them, then it is perfectly fine for such a relationship to manifest in fictional tales such as the CCFS. Only the idiotically conservative and patriarchal anachronistic mindsets try to impose such asinine barriers. The bottom line is that the age difference between Candy and Albert is only a decade and in the previous centuries as well as in our contemporary world, being a decade older or younger than your partner or spouse is nothing out of the ordinary. But then again, some moronic fans desperately try to find fault in the amazing romantic relationship between Candy and Albert. Too bad and much pity for them, they’ll have to try harder.😉

    Thank you again for generously sharing your wonderful stories and artwork with us.
    Best Regards!

    • Elena says:

      Excellent comment, Lynn! It is an indisputable fact that the author of this novel is profoundly fond of Albert and it’s thus not surprising that she would devote the most significant sections of this novel-culminating with the Epilogue-to the development of the bond between Candy and Albert. Their relationship began as a friendship which gradually grew into a strong love based on mutual respect and reciprocal attraction.

    • Ms Puddle says:

      Well said, @Lynn! I couldn’t agree with you more!

      Yes, there are lots of examples (either celebrities or among the people we know) where the age differences between husbands and wives are ten years or more. Also, interestingly, both Prince William and Prince Harry married the women who are older.

      Thank you for your positive feedback on my update and drawing. Glad you enjoyed it 😘

      • Lynn says:

        Thank you for your feedback, @Ms Puddle, @Elena, and @MIchelle.

        It’s insane and downright sexist that there are morons out there who castigate such age differences which, in reality, are not even considerable. Sadly, many such unintelligent, ignorant and misogynistic condemnations come from women, especially those who are middle-aged and elderly. Apparently, they are jealous because nobody is interested in them (not surprising, really) and deep down inside they would have wanted an attractive and successful individual to be interested and eventually fall in love with them. But that isn’t the case for them. Instead, such losers are bound to live dreary lives till their very end and that’s the reason why they profoundly envy people with aspirations and personal integrity. They hate what they can’t have. It’s like Aesop’s fable about the fox and the grapes it failed to catch.

        • Ms Puddle says:

          Yes, @Lynn, I agree. I remember in one of Igarashi’s interviews she mentioned that, based on her observations all these years, the fans who loved Anthony would grow up and be happily married or content with their partners whereas those who adored Terry would have troubles in their love lives.

          • Lynn says:

            I’m not surprised Igarashi would say that as most people would agree with her-at least people who have dignity and self-respect. Only submissive morons who constantly play the victim card, allow themselves to be manipulated and abused by male characters such as Terry. Such miserable folks are so delusional that they desperately try to convince themselves that such unhealthy, filthy and abusive relationships are based on love. When a man hits a woman and demeans her psychologically, that has got nothing to do with love but with degeneracy. Fortunately, most women and men in the modern world condemn such toxic male attitudes and have cancelled pathetic male Terry-type characters as well as those pitiful fools who worship such abusive males.

            • Ms Puddle says:

              I agree, @Lynn. Sadly, this is not the case in many developing countries. 😔

              • Lynn says:

                You’ll still find some servile women with third-world mentalities in the more developed countries too but, fortunately, they are few, old and irrelevant. Nobody takes those pathetic clowns seriously and they are often widely ridiculed when they desperately try to defend such misogynistic and chauvinist characters. Those type of pseudo-macho/rebellious characters such as Terry used to be appealing to sexually repressed women in the previous centuries but the greatest majority of people nowadays have cancelled such toxic male characters. Those who continue to glorify such sordid males have severe psychological problems and are mentally disturbed.

    • Michelle says:

      Well said!

  8. Myra says:

    Hi Ms Puddle, I am pleased to have received further updates surrounding your work. In particular, this new fanart of Candy is by far one of your finest.
    Take care and looking forward to hearing from you again soon!

    • Ms Puddle says:

      Thank you @Myra for catching up right away, which really motivated me to keep writing. 🤗 I didn’t intend to write this long but for some reason the characters seem to lead me down a different path 😉

      Your encouraging feedback to my fanart is greatly appreciated 🥰 I drew Candy a bit more mature (at least I tried to).
      You take care too!

      • Myra says:

        That’s a positive sign that your story is progressing really well and that you’ve got loads of inspiration. We’re all grateful for your hard work and your incredible blog which is so widely respected amongst the Candy Candy readership.

        • Ms Puddle says:

          Myra, your encouraging feedback and kind words are greatly appreciated. 🥰 I’m blushing now. I must say I can hardly believe I started writing this fanfic almost a year ago… The support and encouragement I’ve received so far really keep me motivated 🤗💪

          • Myra says:

            As long as you’re enjoying what you’re doing, that’s what matters. You have attained loads of respect and admiration within the CC community not only for your awesome contributions but also for your commendable character. Your blog is most certainly an oasis amongst the toxicity which has been permeating this fandom. Needless to mention that your analysis of the CC manga and CCFS are always highly intelligent and thoroughly researched.

  9. Sarah says:

    Lovely chapter and thank you for sharing.;-)

    • Sarah says:

      Beautiful fanart of Candy too!

    • Ms Puddle says:

      Thanks @Sarah 😘 It means a lot to me that you responded soon after I had posted the update 🤗

      • Sarah says:

        It was a pleasure reading the new chapter to your story.

      • Sarah says:

        By the way, I have re-read Jean Webster’s DDL and there are some interesting findings I would like to discuss with you at some point.

        Thanks again and looking forward to discussing with you again soon.

        • Sarah says:

          typo: “DLL” (“Daddy Long Legs”)

          Just to let you know that I’ve also read Webster’s “Dear Enemy” too.

          Both novels by Jean Webster have been read in their original English language and not in any loose or dubious translations lurking about.

        • Ms Puddle says:

          Sure Sarah. It’s been a while since I last read DLL and Dear Enemy though 😉

          • Sarah says:

            Have you read “Eight Cousins” by Louisa May Alcott? You’ll find some ‘interesting’ info over there as well..

            • Fay says:

              @Sarah, I have read that book and its sequel, Rose in Bloom. Both books greatly inspired Nagita to write Candy Candy. Indeed, there are a lot of similarities between the two storylines.

              • Sarah says:

                Thanks for letting me know, Fay. Don’t you think there are far too many similarities though? The same goes for Jean Webster’s novels. There’s a fine line between inspiration and plagiarism. We’re not just talking about mere influences at this point…

                • Myra says:

                  I’ll have to agree with you, @Sarah, as I have also read the aforementioned novels. The similarities are numerous to a rather unacceptable extent. Perhaps this may be the reason why not a single English or American publishing company has ever been interested in publishing the CCFS-at least not yet. Nagita may be quite lucky, albeit ironically so, to be unknown and indifferent to the English-speaking world, otherwise she would have been slammed and perhaps even cancelled for plagiarism. Many a writer has been slammed for plagiarism in the English-speaking world for much milder cases of such alleged intellectual property and copyright offences.
                  For example, almost all of Nagita’s references to Shakespeare have been taken from Jean Webster’s references and allusions. As for Louisa May Alcott’s novels, there are tremendous similarities between Nagita’s characters and those of the “Eight Cousins”. There’s even a reference to “Aunt’s Hill” which bears a much too close resemblance to “Ms Pony’s Hill” and vice versa. Needless to mention all those references to Scotland and rural England. The list goes on and on and on for it to be a mere coincidence or minute influence. However, such eerie and dubious similarities were not easily detectable and discernible in the anime because TOEI had significantly re-arranged Nagita’s text and the manga had the charm of its focal point being Igarashi’s amazing visuals. Perhaps the changes TOEI had made to the initial text were deliberate so as to avoid getting slammed for intellectual and copyright infringement.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Hi @Sarah and @Myra, yeah I agree with you both that the similarities between CC and these novels are undeniable. 🙄 That being said, I guess it was plagiarism if Nagita pretended all these had been her original ideas without citing her sources? Yet it’s well known which books had inspired her, especially DLL (even though some certain fans have been in denial).

                  If I remember correctly, Nagita sensei said that was also one of the reasons why they introduced Terry’s bad boy character. Other than that it was a popular idea in the 70s, the author wanted her story plot to be different from DLL.

                  The original plan was, if CC was not well received, then the story would be cut short right after Anthony’s death. Have you heard of that shortest version? That is, after Anthony’s accident, Candy returned to Pony’s Home and Albert appeared to her as Prince on the Hill on the hill. The end.

                  When I first knew that, I was relieved that CC was widely popular and that Nagita could extend the story as much as she wished. New characters and episodes were introduced, like Terry and St. Paul’s Academy etc. They were afterthoughts, essentially.

                • Myra says:

                  Plagiarism doesn’t necessarily involve having copied the entire source (or sources) belonging to someone else. For instance, at most well-established universities it is regarded as plagiarism if a fresh-year student’s paper has scored 12%-14% plagiarism; this is verified via the use of specific software which detects such intellectual property crimes and such software has been installed and enforced at most universities worldwide. The percentage drops dramatically as the student becomes a second and especially third and final year university scholar. It could go as low as 5%-10%. It goes beyond saying that it drops below 5% in most postgraduate and, in particular, doctoral and post-doctoral studies. People in the political field, for example, have had their entire career and academic status ruined because it was later on discovered and confirmed that they had committed plagiarism during their undergraduate or postgraduate studies. Plagiarism is a serious offence but certain countries are more tolerant towards it or perhaps even turn a blind eye to it.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Yes it’s true that plagiarism is a serious offence but like you said, Myra, maybe the laws in some countries are less strict, because CC was an award-winning juvenile manga in Japan, if I’m not mistaken.

                  That said, I’m not an expert at all, and I’m in no position to defend the author of CC. I’m merely a fan of one of her popular stories (if not the most popular) and admire some of the main characters in this story. 😉

                • Myra says:

                  In response to your comment about Terry, he’s not much of a unique or original character either. Such characters have been around since time immemorial and they are often ridiculed and disregarded as mere tropes, especially in English and American literature. Modern literature has completely dispensed with such toxic white male characters and rightfully so.
                  Regardless of what certain delusional fans want to circulate on social media, most of Nagita’s characters constitute very strong influences from other notable works of children’s and adolescents’ literature (mainly late 19th-early 20th century) such as Jean Webster’s and Louisa May Alcott’s novels. In particular, Terry’s character is much akin to another acutely self-destructive, possessive and toxic character found in Alcott’s novel, “Eight Cousins”; his name is Charlie. Since you mentioned that you haven’t read this novel yet, I won’t provide any spoilers. Yet, I would suggest you read this novel as you will be astonished with how much Nagita has “lifted” from this story. I would argue that she has taken even more from Alcott’s “Eight Cousins” and “Rose in Bloom” (the sequel to “Eight Cousins”) than from Webster’s “DLL”.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Now this got me intrigued, @Myra. Thanks in advance! ☺️

                • Myra says:

                  Glad to be of help. It should be very easy to have access to Alcott’s novels online as they belong to public domain status; the same applies to Jean Webster’s novels. There are also loads of Kindle editions available. E-books are much more considerate to the environment rather than buying printed volumes.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Yes, Myra! I totally agree. In recent years I mostly borrow from a local library or read e-books /online too. 🙂

                • Myra says:

                  Regarding the CC manga, it was “award-winning” back in the previous century (1970s-1980s). Much has changed since then in terms of mentalities and legal issues of plagiarism. Back then, Nagita and Igarashi were young and now they are elderly. Mindsets and material circumstances may easily change even within 3-5 years. Imagine how much they may change in 40-50 years. Besides, it was the manga and anime which had achieved worldwide recognition back in those days of the long distant past. The issue is with the older versions along with the newest version of the CCFS which has fallen as flat as a pancake in regard to acclaim and popularity. The novel has fallen way too short of the manga and anime, hence, not being at all surprising that English-speaking publishing companies have tossed it aside or ignored its existence altogether. Perhaps someone from the English-speaking world will want to publish it in the future but time will only tell. For the time-being, nobody seems to be interested since this novel constitutes a enmeshed pilfering of other novels written by other writers long before Nagita and Igarashi.

                • Myra says:

                  Pardon certain typos of mine:

                  1. Meant to say: “..have fallen as flat as a pancake..”;

                  2. “..an enmeshed pilfering..”.

                • Gabriella says:

                  @Sarah and @Myra have made compelling and valid points. There are too many similarities between these novels and Nagita’s. There’s not an argument in the world which could prove otherwise. It also seems to be a plausible theory that the production team of TOEI had purposefully made major adjustments and changes to Nagita’s text in order to avoid displaying all those similarities, as astutely elucidated by @Myra. The sheer irony of it all is that Candy’s story became popular thanks to the changes made by TOEI productions. Neither the manga nor the novel could ever reach a fraction of the anime’s popularity and profit-accruing. The only reason why some consumers even bothered buying the novel was because of the nostalgia factor deriving from the impact the anime had left in its wake during the early eighties.

                • Sarah says:

                  Thank you, @Gabriella!

            • Ms Puddle says:

              Not yet, Sarah. They are high on my to-read list. I’ve read Montgomery’s “Anne of Green Gables” though, another one known to have inspired Nagita sensei. Igarashi actually published a manga series for “Anne of Green Gables” as well.

              • Sarah says:

                It won’t take you much time to read them. Just like the CCFS, they’re purported for a young audience-mainly children and teenagers. Montgomery’s “Anne of Green Gables”, however, is a much more sophisticated novel and the leading character-Anne Shirley-is by far a much more complex character than Candy not only due to her higher level of education but also due to her intelligence and absolute intolerance to any form of abuse. Had Anne Shirley been in Candy’s place when Terry forced himself on her during the May fest, Anne would have whooped his sorry ass and would have sent him back to his mom.😉

                • DreamCatcher says:

                  That’s right. Candy and Anne Shirley have almost nothing in common apart from them being orphans. Their characters couldn’t have been more different in all other aspects. In fact, Candy seems to be more similar in character to Eleanor Porter’s Pollyanna. Both Candy and Pollyanna are known for their cheerful, upbeat but also naïve and transparent character.
                  On the other hand, Anne Shirley was an intellectual and wary, if not often critical and judgemental, of other people. Even if she slightly got carried away, she would always get back to her senses and resume logical reasoning. A noteworthy example is Anne’s initial infatuation with Roy Gardner, who had even become her beau. However, when he eventually proposed to her, Anne realized that she was in love with the “idea” of being in love with him but not “with” him. Anne had romanticized Roy’s brooding looks and dark demeanour but she eventually found his character rather frivolous and way too cheesy to her liking. Anne mustered the self-knowledge to finally understand and admit that she was in deeply in love with Gilbert Blythe, for whom she had initially claimed (or wanted to believe) that she had perceived him only as a brother or dear friend.
                  Interestingly enough, Roy Gardner could easily resemble Terry and Gilbert could be regarded as similar to Albert in terms of character. It’s not uncommon for feminist writers such as Lucy Montgomery, Jean Webster and Louisa May Alcott to deconstruct and often albeit subtly mock toxic male characters even though they tend to initially appear as “gallant” and “dashing” even to the most intelligent of female characters. The main difference, however, is that Anne soon grew tired of and became bored with Roy because she was a much stronger and erudite young woman. It was much more difficult for Candy to unglue herself from Terry because she was way more vulnerable, insecure and sentimental. Fortunately, she became much more confident and independent during her career-building and early adulthood. Her relationship with Albert also reinforced her liberated and dynamic character as Albert always encouraged her to be independent and resourceful.
                  It’s beyond any shadow of a doubt that Albert’s character is profoundly admired by feminist writers such as Lucy Montgomery and this is the reason why feminist men such as Albert, Stear and George have been gaining in popularity and appeal in our day and age.

                • Fay says:

                  I agree 100% with you, @Sarah. Anne would never have left college and interrupted her education to follow a boy she had a crush on, much less ignore her guardian’s wishes for her to educate herself and become a lady. Also Anne would never have abandoned her job (and what’s more, a responsible job as a nurse on a night shift) to watch her boyfriend play.

                  Since Nagita decided to be inspired by certain novels, it would be so much better if she had based Candy’s character on Anne Shirley’s in the same way she based the relationship between Candy and Albert on that one between Judy and Jervis. Speaking of which, I believe even Judy Abbott had more similarities with Anne Shirley than with Candy.

                • Sarah says:

                  Well said @DreamCatcher and @Fay and thank you for your insightful analysis. I agree with you, @Fay, that Judy Abbott and Anne Shirley had much more in common concerning their sophistication and intellectuality; moreover, @DreamCatcher is also right about Candy and Pollyanna having more in common with regard to their naivety and optimism. I would add that I consider Rose (from Alcott’s “Eight Cousins”) to be more akin to Anne and Judy in terms of character development and depth.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  Hi @Sarah, I wish I had more spare time these days, because I also have to read a lot for my new job, but I’m certainly intrigued. I might pick up an e-book one day for stress relief. 😉

                  Candy at St Paul’s was younger than Anne Shirley wasn’t she? I forgot the details now and may need to refresh my memory lol. 😅 Candy was naive and/or inexperienced, I agree. Besides, she had no guardian or someone mature to talk to. That said, Candy did fight back and slap Terry in the face too, even though she was apparently smitten by his charms already.

                • Myra says:

                  Yet, Anne Shirley was just as much of an unprivileged orphan as Candy was and so was Judy Abbott.
                  I don’t think Candy has much of an excuse here because both Anne Shirley and Judy Abbott were strong-willed and completely intolerant to any form of abuse, irrespective of their young age and orphan status.
                  The same applies to many young females characters which were promoted during the first wave of feminism in the nineteenth and early twentieth century (as evident in North-Western literature).
                  Countries such as Japan as well as many countries of the Middle-East, Mediterranean and Latin America, however, were still very much behind as they were condemned under patriarchal norms and rules. Many of these countries continue to suffer from toxic masculinity and misogyny even in our contemporary times.
                  It appears that Keiko Nagita either deliberately or inadvertently promoted a patriarchal version of an otherwise North-American female character which is an oxymoron because Nagita’s intention was to create an American (or “Americanized”) character and thus move away from the Japanese tradition of the manga narrative and subject-matter. Nagita had specified that she wanted to create a character which is not Japanese but “international” (whatever that’s supposed to mean..) but all she achieved was creating a submissive female who took the blows and the abuse from toxic males. This is definitely not indicative of a woman of the North-West and nowhere in American or British literature will such female characters be glorified. Instead, characters such as Anne Shirley and Judy Abbott are widely regarded as feminist characters because they focused on their personal achievements as well as being autonomous without having someone always saving them as in the case of Candy. In reality, Candy is a damsel-in-distress who is constantly saved and protected by male characters whether it be Anthony, George, Archie, Stear, Terry or Albert. Even “Cookie” protected her during her stowaway journey back to the United States. To term Candy as a feminist character is definitely a misnomer, whereas the real deal lies in genuine feminist characters such as Anne Shirley and Judy Abbott. Of-course there are more and they can be found in loads of North American and British literature, especially of the nineteenth century onwards.

              • Michelle says:

                Have any of you read “Les Thibault” by Roger Martin du Gard? The reason I’m asking is because this author is mentioned by Nagita during her interview held by PIKA in Paris. She said that she was influenced by this multi-volume novel sequence, especially in regard to Candy’s character development. Yet, having read the work of both these writers, they seem to have nothing in common and the stories in question couldn’t have been more different. Nagita had mentioned Roger Martin du Gard in 2019 but in the preface to “Daddy Long Legs”, published by ARECHI in 2022, she makes an entirely different statement by claiming that Jean Webster was the main source of inspiration to her. In other sources, Nagita allegedly claimed to have cited Lucy Maud Montgomery and in others Charlotte Bronte. However, the claims linking Nagita to Jane Austen in terms of influence are complete garbage because Nagita had never made such a statement and the style of both writers is different as chalk and cheese. As for her references to Shakespeare, she seems to have taken them from Jean Webster, at least most of them.

                • Ms Puddle says:

                  No, not me, @Michelle, but the plot sounds very complicated and the story involved many characters, right?

                • Michelle says:

                  It would make sense given that it belongs to the ‘roman-fleuve’ genre. Similar style could also be found in the literary works of André Paul Guillaume Gide, Albert Camus and Marcel Proust.

                • Sarah says:

                  I’ve only read the first volumes of “Les Thibault” but I’ve read far more in terms of Marcel Proust’s literary contributions.

                • Michelle says:

                  Both authors are superb but Roger Martin du Gard could get a bit overbearing at times. On the other hand, Marcel Proust tends to be more cryptic and obscure.

                • Sarah says:

                  I agree with you, Michelle.

                • Avon says:

                  It is utterly irrefutable that Keiko Nagita has been heavily influenced by Jean Webster and Louisa May Alcott. Only the uneducated and delusional would deny such intense impact those two writers had on Nagita. I would agree though that Candy’s character is more similar to Pollyanna (By Eleanor H. Porter).

                • Myra says:

                  That’s right. There are far too many similarities to be simply dismissed as mere influences. Granted that most writers have been the recipients of literary influence from prior or contemporary writers; however, in this case, Nagita has pilfered from quite a few British and North American writers, in particular and as already elucidated, Jean Webster and L. M. Alcott. This could most certainly explain the reasons why the CCFS has been ignored in the English-speaking world. Not a single acclaimed publishing company has offered to publish this novel. In some of her interviews, Keiko Nagita has complained about never receiving any offer from an English or American publishing company. If she decides to write an original piece which is not a mere amalgamation of other writers but based on her own individual creativity, then maybe a worthy publishing company (which is not based on kids’ books and toys) could actually find her entry worth considering. For cartoons, anime and manga, Nagita and Igarashi can produce some alright stuff but that’s as far as it goes until they manage to prove otherwise.

                • Christine says:

                  I find it laughable that some fans are going out of their way to dissect the anime and manga from the CCFS. Certain fans are so dumb and pretentious that they try to ascribe intellectual dimensions to Candy Candy. Seriously? The story of Candy White is fun to watch as an anime and the visuals in the manga are superb but some of those fans need to realize for their own mental health that Nagita does not belong to the upper tier of literature. Her pseudo-novel is always situated under the category of “bambini” or any other wording related to children. I doubt a serious or reputable publishing enterprise would edit the CCFS because it belongs to cartoon and magazine category. That’s really it. Apparently, that doesn’t mean people can’t enjoy the work by Nagita and Igarashi. Of-course they can, provided they know what it is and which genre it belongs to. Neither Nagita nor Igarashi are highly-acclaimed literary novelists, poets or globally distinguished intellectuals. They produce work for youngsters and they do a fine job out of it. Personally, I take pleasure in watching anime and reading manga such as Candy Candy but this material has got nothing to do with higher literature or academia. Best to set the record straight.

                • Michelle says:

                  It’s strange how far fans go to interpret their favourite anime and manga characters. Whilst healthy enthusiasm is forthcoming, certain fans take this all too personally and go off on a tangent when it comes to trying to comment on the novel. They are trying too hard to offer literary or philosophical dimensions to an otherwise very simplistic kid’s story such as Candy Candy. Just because there are a few brief mentions of Shakespeare, for example, doesn’t mean that the reader will acquire any insight into this renowned Renaissance bard. Those who try to compare the CCFS to intricate literary and philosophical figures are being nothing more than lamentably pretentious.

  1. May 6, 2022

    […] (to be continued…) […]

I would like to hear from you!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Translate »