Talk:Kaworu Nagisa

From EvaWiki
Revision as of 22:12, 10 August 2007 by Reichu (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Some points/comments. (Please do not insert replies "into" the following text; quote the relevant parts instead.)

  • This article needs to devour "Tabris".
  • Kaworu is ... biologically no different from any other normal human: Does this take genome into account? Kaworu is arguably a hybrid entity (albeit one who seems to ignore virtually all of one parent's contributions...; we can always blame Seele).
  • He appears to have been created during Second Impact due to a fusion of human genes with Adam's matter: The phrasing here bothers me. "Adam's matter". Almost naturally implies that the DNA fused with some random glob of Adam and Kaworu magically appeared. As a strong defender of the elegant "immaculate conception" line of thought, I wonder if there is something more "openly vague" that could be used.
  • lacks a Core or even an S2 organ: I'm not sure there's much information here one way or the other.
  • Unlike normal humans, he has the ability to levitate, perhaps as an A.T. Field related ability.: Considering the XBOX HUEG manifestation of the trademark ATF Blur the moment Kaworu steps off the umbilical bridge, I would say, "Not perhaps, Very Yes."
  • Kaworu puppeted Eva 02: Is "puppeted" the best word? Also, "Eva 02" is inconsistent with site convention.
  • only to discover that the giant crucified inside was not Adam, but Lilith: Some would argue that Kaworu already knew, but went down there anyway. LOL.
  • The name "Nagisa" is a pun.: I'm not sure if the person who named Kaworu (not Anno) did it with punning in mind. It could, however, be decisively said that episode #24's title is a pun.
  • There has been some confusion as to whether Kaworu is truly an actual "Angel": Is this "Angel" defined as "offspring of Adam"?
  • Dr. Katsuragi himself has been speculated to be the donor, but there never has been any official statement to this effect.: I think canonical stuff either poses a question about who it is or says that the donor is unknown. Lamers.

--Reichu 18:12, 10 August 2007 (EDT)