Forum - View topicANNCast - Viewers Like You VII: Adviewnt Children
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
_V_
 Posts: 619 |
|
|||||
Thanks, I really hoped it sounded like a mature, rational, and constructive attempt to at least address this major issue. |
||||||
|
||||||
The King of Harts
 Posts: 6712 Location: Mount Crawford, Virginia |
|
|||||
|
V: What's that game everyone is playing nowadays...Herculoids?
Zac: What? I don't know what you're referring to, but Herculoids is... V: VOCALOIDS, that's right. Zac: Vocaloids isn't a game, it's... V: Yea, everyone has to make time for either that Vocaloid game or anime I know it's not exactly like how it went down, but that was my favorite part. I almost fell off my couch laughing. FYI, these are the Herculoids, and they will crush you. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
|||||
|
"Death of the Author" seems to be badly thought out. You've got to take into account the context in which a story was written, and whether or not it is an allegory or parody or satire, or what-have-you. Attempting to completely divorce what the author intended from what they actually wrote is poor literary form.
That's not to say that readers or viewers cannot come up with perfectly valid and competing interpretations, or even better interpretations. The author is not infallible, and not every work is constructed well enough to have an obvious and/or solid message. But to ignore the author completely . . . well, any time you adopt an extreme in a debate on interpretations you are going to be wrong at least half the time. |
||||||
|
||||||
Charred Knight
 Posts: 3085 |
|
|||||
To me all you're doing is replacing the author's biases, with those of your own. To use the previous example I use, from what I saw most of the people who claim the character was alive usually shipped him with a certain character. To them what was important wasn't how this character living made the ending looked, or how it fit into the story but where simply concerned with the validation of the couple they wanted. |
||||||
|
||||||
braves
 Posts: 2309 Location: Puerto Rico (but living in Texas) |
|
|||||
I guess you could say the original TV series was a deconstruction or whatnot of the super/real/whatever robot genre and they're carrying that over in the new movies, but it being a direct satire of Gurren Lagann? I would find that strange. |
||||||
|
||||||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||||
|
The matter of whether or not pluralistic interpretation is correct, if indeed it is appropriate to declare an interpretation of a creative work to be truth-apt, is not something upon which I am schooled. I can postulate the following presumptions, however:
One supposes that the pluralistic option, which grants the possibility for multiple accounts of what Evangelion depicts or represents to be simultaneously true in spite of their prima facie incompatibility, would place a greater burden upon those wishing to purport a given theorem on the show's meaning. Instead of merely putting forward the case that the show bears a specific meaning solely because its authors intend it, they must instead formulate an account of the show's implicature that is supported by a coherent set of claims, by which I mean a set of propositions regarding the show that support, and in turn are supported, by all other propositions within that set. Since those of a pluralistic persuasion are averse to the simple reliance upon an external authority, the onus lies upon them to formuate a "bundle" of claims about the work they discuss, and for any grand interpretational claims to be justified with reference to this system of propositions. To provide a rough sketch of what this might involve, someone who holds that the "religious" images in Evangelion are indeed significant must construct a set of smaller claims, each of which meeting three criteria. Firstly, they must be derived from what is uncontrovertially observed (and not derived) from what is seen and heard in the anime. Secondly, they must provide confirmatory support for the proposition that Evangelion bears a non-trivial and non-vacuous meaning in virtue of the decidely religious connotations of certain images it contains. Thirdly, each claim must provide confirmatory support for, and must itself be supported by, each other relevant claim, and thereby help to constitute a coherent set. (It could be said that this coherent set is tantamount to an "interpretation", though I do not necessarily purport this to be the case.) The immediate upshot of what I have in mind for those who wish to allow for a pluralism of interpretation, aside the obvious and intentional relativism it permits, is the fact that it requires meticulous theorems of creative works — "models" if you will — to be constructed, as an alternative to resting upon presumed authorial will. One assumes, or at least hopes, that those partial to this pluralism relish this sort of task.
I request that you develop this claim into something more formal. Because I'm not very knowledgeable on the ontology of fiction (which, I must note, is an active research area), I remain agnostic on the matter. However, I feel that you are somehow mischaracterising the approach of those you oppose. You recommend that those who diverge from the author's declarations cannot call their own theories to be, in your words, "grounded in evidence". I presume your opponents would believe otherwise, insofar as they hold their interpretations to be derived from the creative itself, as abstracted from the work as seen by its author. The examples you provide when making this claim, viz. certain popular topics from the history of science (which itself may be considered an effective "graveyard" of theories), may not be the most appropriate scholarly refutations to cite, for the domains of medicine and biology are not held to be fictional by those who study them, whereas the domains of anime and manga are. I suspect that a difference as great as this warrants a methodological distinction between the freedom one can enjoy in developing a scientific theorem on one hand, and the freedom one can enjoy in developing an interpretational theorem on the other. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
_V_
Posts: 619 |
|
|||||
er...actually, I said "Verculoids" with a V -- listen again. I was fumbling around for the word "Vocaloids" (keep in mind this was 2 am) I'd actually never heard of this "Herculoids" show until someone pointed it out just now. Yeah must have been funny for Zac if that's what he thought I was trying to say... @Zin5ki - a major point I also have is that even the religious symbols do not form a coherent "pattern"...because they were randomly inserted. By all means, many have *claimed* that there was an inherent pattern or correlation, e.g. "Gendo must be based on this part of the Kabbalah Tree of Sephiroth*....but this falls apart under scrutiny, as it is simply mashing in the evidence to fit a pre-conceived pattern (it makes no more sense than if I randomly selected "Greek mythology" and said "well Gendo is sort of like Zeus...therefore, he is based on Zeus") What would be really weird is if the creators denied religious meaning (which they have)....and then it formed very obvious patterns. Instead, we're talking about a lot of cross-shaped explosions. Indeed, multiple episodes can pass by without reference to religious symbols (beyond the basic presence of the Evas and Angels). But the few (albeit prominent) times religious symbols are shown gets disproportionately represented. So I have yet to see a coherent functional theory of what all of the religious symbols actually mean; most just ASSUME they mean something, while others are often mere supposition. Last edited by _V_ on Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
_Scythe_
Posts: 12 |
|
|||||
It was more of how the statement was made. Zac was putting it up their with the arts which I know is a very wide range. Then he seemed to push it down the more V tried to advocate the importance of the show. Im no real art fan but I like NGE and I would pick that over any picasso. And in terms of cinema art it is much better than many critically acclaimed films in my opinion. As for the rivalry I doubt that it would be resolved by one post if any. I am a mod on V's site and I do believe in many of his views. We should help the newer fans and not cast them away or make them feel like lesser fans for watching a series later. |
||||||
|
||||||
v1cious
 Posts: 6203 Location: Houston, TX |
|
|||||
|
Started off as a meaningful debate... then at around 48:00, it took a turn for the weird
 . V does makes a lot of good points, although I think the ship on tv anime has sailed. I think Panty & Stocking could bring in younger fans, but there's no way this is getting on TV.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Top Gun
 Posts: 4584 |
|
|||||
|
The more I think back on that rather fascinating two-hour conversation (it made stripping wallpaper much more fun
 ), I've had a few other thoughts come to mind. One was about V's statement that one of the main themes of Evangelion is a rejection of escapism and embracing of reality, and thinking back to the series' ending, that seems fairly reasonable to me. I think it does provide another reason why I was never all that sold on the series, because I'm personally all about escapism. Reality is generally boring, monotonous, and sometimes even downright frustrating...why wouldn't you want to go pilot a giant robot or take up a sword to save the world over filing tax returns and making sure the mortgage payments are on time? I guess what surprised me the most is that V seemingly embraces that theme despite being a professed Lord of the Rings fanatic, since to me, that sense of escapism is the main reason why I love the novels so much. Hell, if someone offered me a portal to Middle-earth, I'd probably take it without a second thought.
That link that Sailor Star Dust posted about Anno not having the ending of the TV series planned out beforehand was some fun food for thought, too. I honestly don't have much respect for authors/directors who take the "make-it-up-as-you-go" approach, since that almost inevitably leads to poor story construction, which I view as Eva's most egregious problem. As someone mentioned before, it's that sort of approach that turned LOST into the mess it wound up as; on the manga side of things, it's the same reason why Inuyasha went nowhere fast for years. I have far more respect for creators who have an ending planned right from the start, know in general how they want to get there, and always keep that in mind while telling their story. Creators like Eiichiro Oda, who had several of his major characters planned years before they entered the story, and who regularly revisits plot tidbits from a hundred chapters in the past. I think the best example I've seen of this in anime was the series Moribito: every single episode contributed to the whole, the pace was measured throughout the entire series, and the ending tied everything that had happened together. You want to tell a story like that, not like Anno. As far as the central debate of that two-hour conversation goes, surprisingly enough, I think I found myself siding more with V than Zac. I personally don't have much use for literary/film analysis as a whole; I have a very scientifically-oriented mind, so that whole idea of any interpretation being essentially equally valid, despite author evidence to the contrary, doesn't seem very rational to me. I mean, if people want to construct these elaborate explanations for Eva's religious symbolism, more power to them...but we have numerous statements from the series' creators that said symbols were pulled out of their asses, so no matter how much "evidence" you cite, you're just wasting their time. Also, that "Author Is Dead" thing is just flat-out ridiculous. Real people write novels and direct movies, and those people have certain thoughts and intentions while doing so. If people can come up with completely different ideas based on them, so much the better, but that doesn't change the fact that those original intentions still exist and were meant to be conveyed in some fashion. As other people have stated, I think the fact that so many wildly different interpretations can be drawn from Eva represents a failing on Anno's part to convey his own intentions, not some sort of artistic merit. And finally...
Now here's a man after my own heart.  Part of me views Gurren-Lagann as a bit of an apology on Gainax's part for Evangelion. "Okay, you all had to suffer through Shinji...now here's the anti-Shinji. Enjoy!"
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
_Scythe_
Posts: 12 |
|
|||||
|
Wait gurren laggan had something to do with eva no way.... >.>
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/hunter692007/Evangelion/Gurren_Lagann_ep6.jpg I think we have to think of what it is that we like. Is it the directors vision and message, or is it a fans interpretation. Do we like the series for what it is or for what the fans have built it up to be? I for one would like to hear what the creators intent was, at least more so than someone screaming about their yaoi fanfic. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Ahab
Posts: 28 |
|
|||||
|
I must admit that when I first started listening to ANNcast I had trouble liking Zac and found his attitude to be rather jaded and aloof. However, after listening to the show a little longer, I began to understand where he's coming from and what he's about.
That said, after listening to this show, my opinion of Zac increased tenfold. I have long been irritated by anime fandom as a whole purely because of people like the V guy. How Zac could have the patience to sit there and listen to this guys garbage and try to bring some kind of level-headed discussion to the table at the same time, just makes me realize how impatient I can be. Thanks Zac, you've actually made me appreciate what you do a whole lot more and for that, I am very grateful. As for V guy; GET A DAMN LIFE!! |
||||||
|
||||||
Dorcas_Aurelia
 Posts: 5344 Location: Philly |
|
|||||
|
The 2 hour debate was glorious.
Regarding the "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" I thought that seemed a bit odd coming from V, as the point Network was making is that the consumers (specifically in the movie, TV news viewers) had stopped thinking for themselves, and simply followed the most sensational of personalities, and this was the mantra of the most popular "anchor" (after his emotional breakdown). Initially, it is a genuine plea to incite real people to take up action, but it rapidly became nothing more than a catch phrase with no meaning. I do believe this genuinely qualifies as irony, for V is seriously attempting to invoke the dramatic conflict inherent in the interpretation of Evangelion, but has become something of a spectacle instead. I do not mean to offend, for V clearly does his best to convey earnestly and intelligently his position, but if he took a step back and viewed his actions from a distance, the seriousness rises to a level that reaches melodrama and comedy even. Most people, even in anime fandom, just don't care that much. |
||||||
|
||||||
penguintruth
 Posts: 8461 Location: Penguinopolis |
|
|||||
|
I was on the Anime3000 podcast some time ago talking about Fullmetal Alchemist and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. It was a fine experience, and I got to plug my blog, but I doubt I got any traffic from it at all. What bugged me was that I was the only person in the conversation who had read all of the manga and seen all of Brotherhood. Don't have a panel about a show you haven't completed. They have a great website, though. It upsets me more people don't go there.
As for the V guy and Evangelion, well... he certainly shows enthusiasm. I think Evangelion is really one of the greats, truly, but every Evangelion discussion eventually morphs into the same one Evangelion discussion you always see/hear. Really. |
||||||
|
||||||
Animehermit
 Posts: 964 Location: The Argama |
|
|||||
|
@v for vendetta
let me try to explain to you what Zac was trying to in the 2 hour discussion. When i was 14 i wrote a poem for my High School English class, it was kinda bad but i was proud of it. When i got it back from my teacher, there was a footnote about how he thought a reference to music within the poem was fantastic. I never intended there to be a music reference in my poem, and upon reviewing my poem, i saw the reference plain as day. My point is, is that Authorial intent, while it does play some factor, should not wholly influence your interpretation of the work. Just because Anno said its not about this or that, doesn't mean that those interpretations are incorrect. This is sounding very similar to a discussion I had in my AP English course about authorial intent (although we were talking about Aldous Huxley at the time). |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group