That does make sense! I mean, one will have contact with such language whenever there is a need for politeness, but also I guess when in contact with some subcultures.
By the way, I changed the definition of お泊まり in the vocab sheet, because the お prefix is just for politeness. 泊まり is a thing by itself I think 
.
The word that お泊まりactually comes from is the verb 泊まる (that’s how this politeness form is constructed: お + verb-ます-stem). The question is whether putting the verb into the vocab sheet makes it harder to associate in the end 
On the other hand, the ます-stem of many verbs is a noun in itself, so it’s definitely not wrong to put the noun into the sheet.
Thanks for taking care of it!
That… is a fair point. I haven’t thought of that, but you’re right! Theoretically, from the text the full phrase should’ve been お泊まりなさる, but not sure if it’s worth putting that instead? It’s kind of like having both ご覧 and ご覧になる.
Now it feels like it’s a coincidence. 
Considering the fact that the vocab sheet is mainly there to help people look up stuff and understand with more ease, I guess it would be a fair point to put the whole expression there. Maybe with the addition that it’s a polite form derived from 泊まる.
I must say I have yet to see ご覧 without になる 
so putting the whole expression would definitely make the most sense to me. Especially in the case of these keigo-only special verbs.
So I came across an interesting thesis on Ogawa Mimei titled Ogawa Mimei’s Children’s Stories: A Case Study of the Rise of Childhood in the Context of Westernization and Japanese Modernization. This story is mentioned in the Class Conflict subsection.
“Another of Ogawa’s stories that focuses on skill being associated with class is “A Soup Bowl for a Feudal Lord.” Unexpectedly, the conflict does not lie between the feudal lord and a peasant, but between a peasant and an artisan.[…] In this story, Ogawa raises the commoner over the famous artisan.[…] Ogawa stresses the practicality of the bowl, demonstrating how the lower class has not been corrupted by wealth or fame, and thus can maintain the true function of the bowl. He defines skill by functionality. Class, fame, and money do not determine skill.”
And a comment on the artisan not directly delivering the bowl to the lord : "This practice is indicative of social restrictions. The potter cannot offer directly his handiwork to the lord. Instead, the bowl travels upward in class by way of the officer. "
source, for if you want to read more.
This is probably one of my favorite passages from the story:
だから、
Also, the ultimate insult:
おまえは、
Amazing story. Thank you kindly @NicoleIsEnough for choosing it! 
Looking forward to the next installment.
I didn’t really like the end conclusion, though. So we stop creating beautiful things because they are impractical? I have plenty of impractical beautiful things in my home that I wouldn’t want to be without. I’m sure that Ogawa didn’t really mean it like that, though, and that it’s just exaggerated for comedic effect, but I felt it was unfair towards the potter. The Lord should have scolded his staff for giving him his food in a ornamental soup bowl. I felt that that annoying 役人 got off way too easy in this story because he was the one who wanted the bowl to be 軽い and 薄手. 
I feel like it’s more the folly of tolerating pain for the sole purpose of looking refined.
I was thinking the same thing - the potter did as he was asked, he made the most refined bowl he could. The 役人 specifically asked for these qualities. The lord was foolish in that at first he thought he had to endure as if it was some kind of test, and then in that he blamed the potter for unkindness (!). Obviously having the skill to do something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s always wise to do so, but what would have happened if the bowl wasn’t of such exquisite quality? Wouldn’t the 役人 have been angry? Wouldn’t the potter’s reputation suffer? It was a lose-lose situation for the poor man.
This all was more a problem of miscommunication in my eyes. The potter wanted to show off his skills. The 役人 wanted to please the lord with something of the highest quality, made with rare skill. The lord didn’t want to appear weak by giving up a bowl that burned his hands.
It could have been worse, though. Given the unexpected endings of the previous stories, I fully worried about the potter’s life towards the end.
I think it’s less that beautiful things shouldn’t be made - but more that you shouldn’t sacrifice utility in a thing intended to be used for aesthetics. It can still be made aesthetically pleasing, but that clearly should come secondary to utility when it is something that is going to be, you know, used. The bowl might have looked nice but it was completely impractical. It doesn’t comment on the idea of art for art’s sake, but instead on the idea that art cannot supercede practicality. If you’re going to use a bowl to drink hot soup, having it be aesthetically pleasing is no help when you’re burning your hands. And as mentioned in another comment the 殿様 likely would’ve bitten the artisan’s head off if it wasn’t like the bowl he gave originally (although I kind of got the vibe that he was never actually consulted about what he wanted) so there’s some critique of the upper class mixed in there
dang school is really kicking my butt this term, but I’m still here reading along!
This one was a tough one for me too, but as for the moral
IDK gang, I’m having a hard time seeing the artisan as the bad guy. Like I’m seeing the theme that functional things are more valuable than overly ornamental ones, it’s just… the lord asked for a really nice, really thin, really delicate dish… and he got one… i think it’s a story about ungrateful customers
The lord didn’t ask for it, the retainer did, then presented it to his lord saying “this is what all the cool tonosamas are using these days”. He used it despite the second-degree burns to his hands every meal in order not not appear ungrateful.
still… don’t you think the artisan was just doing his job 
unless?
I’d almost be willing to say the artisan is engaging in a bit of malicious compliance, save that he seems completely unaware of what actually happens when you make a bowl so thin that foolish people can’t see it. He did make exactly what was asked of him, though (and perhaps he was too out-ranked by the retainer to say "uh, no, there’s an effective limit to how thin you should make something designed to hold hot food… or he didn’t realise they were actually going to use the thing rather than just display it).
I agree! And I have a potentially silly question I really want to ask (hopefully it’s even stupid enough to encourage others to ask questions hehe).
About one third into the first page (Word document) I got stuck on a more elementary grammar point; the passive form.
I was taught the following pattern by Genki:
(victim)は(villain)に(evil act).
(Although the act is not always “evil” and the “victim” is not always negatively affected.)
So with the passive form the person who does the action is follows by particle に and the person to which the action is done, is followed by particle は. I don’t see how this fits with this sentence:
お役人は主人を呼び出されて、陶器を仔細に見られまして、「。。。」と、お役人は申されました。
For one, contextually it seems strange that the government official would be summoned by the shopkeeper (呼び出す≈to summon) to scrutinise the shopkeeper’s work. Furthermore, if I understand what was said (i.e. what’s inside 「。。。」) (which I probably don’t, heh…) then I also don’t see how お役人はお申されました fits with the pattern for the passive form that I know.
A reply in this link (https://www.reddit.com/r/LearnJapanese/comments/1wnrxj/still_dont_understand_the_suffering_passive/cf48xf7/)
says that there’s another version where “を (instead of が) indicates the receiver of the action, and に (or による) indicates the doer of the action, and は indicates the person who is negatively affected by it” (I think this is also in a footnote in Genki). But this also doesn’t seem to fit. Am I missing something obvious? Any help on this would be much appreciated
Not a silly question at all! I was recently confused by the same issue! I don’t have a grammar book that explains it, so someone else can probably explain it better, but like @Phryne said, apparently in polite language the passive form is sometimes used instead of the active form as if they are simply the same thing (?!). Since learning this, I’ve started to ignore the passive vs active difference in formal language and I simply look at the particles to determine what is going on.
In this case, since the 主人 is marked with を, he must be the one who is being called by the 役人. 
Yeahhh… So I did not enjoy reading this story lol. Dear lord the humility of it all. It’s bringing back very traumatising memories of giving up on Shin Kanzen Master when the keigo chapter came around 
Also, that ruler sure did have some first world problems 
I think anyone currently working for an incompetent boss can appreciate this sentiment.
A few questions that I’ve not seen answered yet in this thread…
けれど、殿さまは、毎日お食事のときに茶わんをごらんになると、なんということなく、顔色が曇るのでごさいました。
What did you make of なんということなく?
百姓は、お世辞のないかわりに、まことにしんせつでありました。
Wait, is this saying that instead of not flattering, he is a sincere guy? That doesn’t make any sense to me.
殿さまは、百姓の生活がいかにも簡単で、のんきで、お世辞こそいわないが、しんせつであったのが身にしみておられまして、それをお忘れになることがありませんでした。
I feel like お世辞 means something else than I think it does. Is it his life here not 言うing any お世辞s? What does that mean?
@Phryne and @wiersm, thanks a lot! It was kind of sprinkled everywhere in this text also afterwards so this definitely helps.
So, as you guys explain, when the passive form is used in this way all the “normal” (i.e. “ます”-form) rules apply to particles and whatnot and then it’s easy(/easier) to distinguish when it’s used as a polite form and when as in Genki. For example:
お役人は主人を呼び出されました。 ≈ The government official summoned the shopkeeper.
主人はお役人に呼び出されました。≈ The shopkeeper was summoned by the government official.
I will admit that I got so tired with all the politeness that I stopped paying too much attention after a while, so I’m sure I missed several details. I got the same impression as you about お世辞, in that it may mean something slightly different than flattery in this context or era. It gave me the impression that it is something expected in polite society, maybe the ability to speak humbly and compliment the other person or something? Just my guess.
As for なんということなく, that’s also a guess (I love misunderstanding という), but could it be “without saying anything?”