Ah, as I somewhat expected, there were a few discrepancies between our comments, so to speak. Like I said, such is the beauty of the internet. Now we can sort out the misunderstandings.
Your reply certainly clarified something for me, that something being the purpose of your essay. From what I was initially understanding, the excerpt seemed little more than an explanation of the practice already set in place for analysis, possibly even an affirmation for said process. Now, if I understand your comment, you are basically attempting to introduce a new process. At least, that’s how I’m taking it. Would that be correct?
As to your response concerning the “texts and toolbox” approach, I am aware of it, and have used it several times. I believe this is one point where my understanding of your point failed. From my viewpoint, I saw your essay as a sort of confirmation of the “texts and toolbox” approach; moreover, I saw it as potentially introducing the approach to a previously uninformed audience. Now I see that idea is somewhat opposite to your true intentions, and rereading the text affords me the new insight. I see what you’re getting at now. Something along the lines of “While the ‘theories’ produce fascinating results, they fail in providing anything outside of just that, fascination. In reality, the anime speaks for itself and should be studied as itself, by itself, and through itself, not through the looking glass of outside, potentially useless to the content, theories.” Or something along those lines, I should think. (I feel as though paraphrasing furthers my understanding of most things. Whether it actually does or not is an argument for a later date.)
I see something resembling Empiricism in your line of thought. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I feel as though I should point it out. I see this particularly in your line regarding moving scenes, arcs, or ideas. From this viewpoint, it would seem you are arguing Empiricism over Rationalism to some extent.
Next on the agenda, my prior summary of your positive point. By “clouding the meaning,” I was merely referring to missing the point or intention of the anime by using the outside philosophic influences, or theories.
Now I feel as though I must address a statement of yours, “The apparently universal applicability of these theories seems to me the best proof that they must be, for the most part, detached from the things they try to talk about.” It is at this point that I completely agree with you. Truth be told, I’ve pondered the same thing, if not something similar, many times. It would seem that if a theory could be stretched to fit most anything with no apparent consequence, then somewhere a line must have been crossed and a fault made. I would surmise that a theory should be specifically rooted to one particular instance, perhaps several related instances, and stretching its usage beyond that would ultimately leave said theory watered down and meaningless.
As to my confusion over your using the word articulate, yes and no. I feel as though I understood your usage, and when I used it to sum up your point, I meant it as unintelligent moreso than unspoken, which is why I included the latter “or lack of a statement.” I suppose using the word for a different meaning than you had was something of an error on my behalf.
Despite any earlier confusion, though, I feel like I now understand your intentions. “Discuss the theoretical meaning poetically, not theoretically.” Yes?
If you think your comment is "harsh," then I don't think you're familiar with the world of academic philosophical debate (and for that you may count yourself lucky!). Actually, I think it's a perfectly reasonable response to what I'm saying and (moreso) how I'm trying to say it. Since I wrote this, oh, two months ago, it's occurred to me that folks picking it up for the first time wouldn't know what in the sam hell I was getting on about, so maybe it'd be helpful if (in response to you) I clarified some things. So, thank you for asking, and I hope this helps.
First of all, this little excerpt is targeted at a very specific kind of thinking, albeit a widespread one. (All philosophy, I think, is to some degree written for a specific occasion, but this probably more than most.) All over the Humanities, basically wherever anyone would want to interpret something like literature (in this case, anime), there is what I would call a "texts and toolbox" kind of approach to interpretation. In this approach I have (on one side) the various things I want to talk about, and I also have (on the other side) various interpretive theories I shall apply to the texts to make them give up their secrets. The general assumption is that a method (one that has been systematized and usually pre-approved by some kind of authority) must be applied before I can say anything whatsoever about the book or the movie or the show. (You're quite right to notice that the ideas in this excerpt could be applied elsewhere, and the reason is that the "texts and toolbox" approach is one of the cornerstones of the Humanities.) If you take an upper-level class in, e.g., cultural studies or literature or religious studies, this is probably the general picture you will be presented with.
It is also the picture I am now trying to explode. The many "theories" allow you to discover very fascinating bits of trivia to impress your friends with (such and such is a phallic symbol, this and that are subverting normal gender roles, and so on) that are also, unfortunately, absolutely useless for obtaining any clarity on what you're watching or reading means. I can, with very little difficulty, dissect a show like Utena and identify every element in it using any theory of my choice - but what does this actually tell me? Does it say anything about why - in an innocent, unmotivated viewing - a certain scene, a certain story arc, a certain idea is so striking or so moving? Or is it not precisely the reverse? Doesn't the "texts and toolbox" approach tear me away from the simple appropriation of the show as I watch it? I contend this is what actually happens. The goal of the excerpt here, beyond anything else, is just to point out (ideally to the students in these fields) why this approach is, at base, deeply questionable. My outline for an alternative is, of course, inadequate, but it at least strikes me as being on the right course.
Which brings me nicely to the second issue. You sum up my positive point thusly: "Anime must be interpreted carefully so as not to cloud the meaning from the viewing of said anime with outside philosophic influences and so as not to be muddled down by inarticulate statements or lack of a statement at all." The real danger, for me, isn't a "clouded meaning," if by that what is understood is an unclear presentation of what a show is saying, or even the "lack of a statement." Most of the meanings we gain from everyday viewing aren't particularly clear, and yet we get on just fine. The real danger is, so to speak, clear and unclouded meanings that are disconnected from the genuinely given content. One cannot get much more clear than, e.g., labeling all the characters in a series as symbols for various other things; this can be done very precisely, and often very successfully. The problem with all of these theories is not that they don't work, but that they work too well. With no exception that I've found, they can be stretched to apply to any case whatsoever so long as one is willing to put up with a level of absurdity (thus one can write a perfectly coherent essay on how Haruhi is actually about class struggle, or how Dragonball Z is actually a retelling of the Old Testament). The apparently universal applicability of these theories seems to me the best proof that they must be, for the most part, detached from the things they try to talk about. If "clouding the meaning" refers instead to the fact that these approaches frustrate genuine attempts to understand the things being considered, however, then I would agree. It's particularly true in the case of Eva, which has been the (willing) victim of this for years.
Also, I think you may have been slightly confused by my use of the term "articulate." I like this word quite a bit and use it in a number of ways, but here I simply meant it in the sense of bringing to speech (to language). As I said, our unclear (and unarticulated, i.e. unspoken) understandings for shows or books or whatever are perfectly fine most of the time. Philosophy, however, has different requirements. We may, of course, fairly choose not to do philosophy, but assuming we go through with it philosophy will want to discuss such things. Therein lies the whole difficulty, and the whole risk. To bring a meaning to speech is, among other things, to conceptualize it and put it under a terminology. But where are such concepts to be found? Not from any authority, no matter how convincing: this is exactly the fallacy of the approach I just rejected. The only remaining possibility is to gain one's concepts and (as it were) a new way of talking from a confrontation with the matter itself. This is extremely difficult. Ultimately, one needs to work out a kind of poetry (albeit a piecemeal one). The "articulation" of an anime in the way I mean it finally amounts to bringing the meaning of the show to a language rooted in, and negotiated from, the show itself.
In the end, you're right to wonder wonder why I would want to "introduce new concepts to an anime-watching society that is unfamiliar with philosophic interpretation." In a certain sense, I don't. This little polemic should not be considered a call for everyone to interpret anime philosophically; most would find it a bother, and they can get along just as well without wrestling with it. They should close the window, forget about it, and get on with life. This polemic is written, so to speak, for those who are already doing what I describe (whether they know it or not). These are the folks who not only love anime, but also feel some need to discuss what it means. I am trying to allow the relevant readers, whom I assume are already working things through in their own way, to see an alternative to what they may find in their college courses. Formally speaking, this essay has more in common with a kick in the head than a theoretical system of new concepts. ("I am trying to get you to do something," as Ludwig Wittgenstein would say.) Here then is my "method": set free the matter at hand to give itself to you just as it is, and bring it to a poeticizing language drawn from the thing's own logic. Put in that way it risks sounding passe and quite self-evident, but actually carrying it through is the work of a lifetime.
I run the risk of being misunderstood as I comment on this excerpt, but such is the joy of the internet. You may quickly reply so that my comment does not run amok.
I understand the piece for the most part, though I admittedly needed to inquire elsewhere about Scylla and Charybdis. After discovering exactly what you were alluding to, I must say I'm impressed with your usage. To be sure, your style certainly makes for a pleasant read. Furthermore, I learned something new, and that's seldom a bad thing.
My understanding of much more of the essay would be marred by my not having seen either Utena or Evangelion, but this excerpt seems understandable without having seen either anime. I feel as though I grasp your intention for the essay; however, I find myself questioning the use of the information provided outside of introducing new concepts to an anime-watching society that is unfamiliar with philosophic interpretation. Though I'll admit, the basis of what you present could be taken outside of philosophic interpretation and applied simply to interpretation in a broader sense. Take literary interpretation, for example. For what you seem to be arguing, the same ideas apply. Unless I'm missing something crucial, which is why I'm commenting.
I'm wondering what more you're discussing in the essay, and I feel as though I'm missing some of your meaning. From what I gather, you're arguing something similar to "Anime must be interpreted carefully so as not to cloud the meaning from the viewing of said anime with outside philosophic influences and so as not to be muddled down by inarticulate statements or lack of a statement at all." If that is the soul purpose of the essay, then I'm missing a greater relevance than that mentioned above, i.e. introducing new concepts to an anime-watching society that is unfamiliar with philosophic interpretation.
However, if that is not the soul purpose of the essay, then I find myself expecting an analysis of the mentioned anime. And if that happens to be the main attraction, so to speak, then I applaud your undertaking and look forward to any future advancements.
I feel as though I'm being harsh, but in light of your desire for publication, I offer this merely out of critique which may be brought up by publishers. Personally, I think the work could very well introduce philosophy and interpretation (analysis) to a new audience.
Once again, I apologize for any misunderstandings, and please feel free to reply if you have any questions or if you wish to correct some of my thinking. As you said, taken out of the context of the greater portion of the essay, this passage loses something, and I'm curious as to what that something is.
I for one think that you must complete this. I can't imagine the thought of this just sitting there on your hard drive, unread.
I have to admit that it never really occurred to me that when theory gets into the picture, it could be a cause for concern (to varying degree, I'd say). Theory becoming reflexive and recursive? I hadn't thought that out too far; perhaps because it never really became clear what I've been doing when I was trying to do something along those lines, i.e. think of anime, as opposed to theory. Nevertheless, I'm not planning on bravely tossing theory aside (and I don't think you would either), but I hope to keep in mind that I am working with theory. I've just got to figure out that difficult part of clarifying exactly what it is that's "speaking" to me.
And again, please finish this. We need more of this stuff over here!
Wayward Warrior
Title: Otaku Legend | Posted 07/16/09 | Reply
Ah, as I somewhat expected, there were a few discrepancies between our comments, so to speak. Like I said, such is the beauty of the internet. Now we can sort out the misunderstandings.
Your reply certainly clarified something for me, that something being the purpose of your essay. From what I was initially understanding, the excerpt seemed little more than an explanation of the practice already set in place for analysis, possibly even an affirmation for said process. Now, if I understand your comment, you are basically attempting to introduce a new process. At least, that’s how I’m taking it. Would that be correct?
As to your response concerning the “texts and toolbox” approach, I am aware of it, and have used it several times. I believe this is one point where my understanding of your point failed. From my viewpoint, I saw your essay as a sort of confirmation of the “texts and toolbox” approach; moreover, I saw it as potentially introducing the approach to a previously uninformed audience. Now I see that idea is somewhat opposite to your true intentions, and rereading the text affords me the new insight. I see what you’re getting at now. Something along the lines of “While the ‘theories’ produce fascinating results, they fail in providing anything outside of just that, fascination. In reality, the anime speaks for itself and should be studied as itself, by itself, and through itself, not through the looking glass of outside, potentially useless to the content, theories.” Or something along those lines, I should think. (I feel as though paraphrasing furthers my understanding of most things. Whether it actually does or not is an argument for a later date.)
I see something resembling Empiricism in your line of thought. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I feel as though I should point it out. I see this particularly in your line regarding moving scenes, arcs, or ideas. From this viewpoint, it would seem you are arguing Empiricism over Rationalism to some extent.
Next on the agenda, my prior summary of your positive point. By “clouding the meaning,” I was merely referring to missing the point or intention of the anime by using the outside philosophic influences, or theories.
Now I feel as though I must address a statement of yours, “The apparently universal applicability of these theories seems to me the best proof that they must be, for the most part, detached from the things they try to talk about.” It is at this point that I completely agree with you. Truth be told, I’ve pondered the same thing, if not something similar, many times. It would seem that if a theory could be stretched to fit most anything with no apparent consequence, then somewhere a line must have been crossed and a fault made. I would surmise that a theory should be specifically rooted to one particular instance, perhaps several related instances, and stretching its usage beyond that would ultimately leave said theory watered down and meaningless.
As to my confusion over your using the word articulate, yes and no. I feel as though I understood your usage, and when I used it to sum up your point, I meant it as unintelligent moreso than unspoken, which is why I included the latter “or lack of a statement.” I suppose using the word for a different meaning than you had was something of an error on my behalf.
Despite any earlier confusion, though, I feel like I now understand your intentions. “Discuss the theoretical meaning poetically, not theoretically.” Yes?
~The Curious OneFasteriskhead
Title: Otakuite++ | Posted 07/15/09 | Reply
@Wayward Warrior:
If you think your comment is "harsh," then I don't think you're familiar with the world of academic philosophical debate (and for that you may count yourself lucky!). Actually, I think it's a perfectly reasonable response to what I'm saying and (moreso) how I'm trying to say it. Since I wrote this, oh, two months ago, it's occurred to me that folks picking it up for the first time wouldn't know what in the sam hell I was getting on about, so maybe it'd be helpful if (in response to you) I clarified some things. So, thank you for asking, and I hope this helps.
First of all, this little excerpt is targeted at a very specific kind of thinking, albeit a widespread one. (All philosophy, I think, is to some degree written for a specific occasion, but this probably more than most.) All over the Humanities, basically wherever anyone would want to interpret something like literature (in this case, anime), there is what I would call a "texts and toolbox" kind of approach to interpretation. In this approach I have (on one side) the various things I want to talk about, and I also have (on the other side) various interpretive theories I shall apply to the texts to make them give up their secrets. The general assumption is that a method (one that has been systematized and usually pre-approved by some kind of authority) must be applied before I can say anything whatsoever about the book or the movie or the show. (You're quite right to notice that the ideas in this excerpt could be applied elsewhere, and the reason is that the "texts and toolbox" approach is one of the cornerstones of the Humanities.) If you take an upper-level class in, e.g., cultural studies or literature or religious studies, this is probably the general picture you will be presented with.
It is also the picture I am now trying to explode. The many "theories" allow you to discover very fascinating bits of trivia to impress your friends with (such and such is a phallic symbol, this and that are subverting normal gender roles, and so on) that are also, unfortunately, absolutely useless for obtaining any clarity on what you're watching or reading means. I can, with very little difficulty, dissect a show like Utena and identify every element in it using any theory of my choice - but what does this actually tell me? Does it say anything about why - in an innocent, unmotivated viewing - a certain scene, a certain story arc, a certain idea is so striking or so moving? Or is it not precisely the reverse? Doesn't the "texts and toolbox" approach tear me away from the simple appropriation of the show as I watch it? I contend this is what actually happens. The goal of the excerpt here, beyond anything else, is just to point out (ideally to the students in these fields) why this approach is, at base, deeply questionable. My outline for an alternative is, of course, inadequate, but it at least strikes me as being on the right course.
Which brings me nicely to the second issue. You sum up my positive point thusly: "Anime must be interpreted carefully so as not to cloud the meaning from the viewing of said anime with outside philosophic influences and so as not to be muddled down by inarticulate statements or lack of a statement at all." The real danger, for me, isn't a "clouded meaning," if by that what is understood is an unclear presentation of what a show is saying, or even the "lack of a statement." Most of the meanings we gain from everyday viewing aren't particularly clear, and yet we get on just fine. The real danger is, so to speak, clear and unclouded meanings that are disconnected from the genuinely given content. One cannot get much more clear than, e.g., labeling all the characters in a series as symbols for various other things; this can be done very precisely, and often very successfully. The problem with all of these theories is not that they don't work, but that they work too well. With no exception that I've found, they can be stretched to apply to any case whatsoever so long as one is willing to put up with a level of absurdity (thus one can write a perfectly coherent essay on how Haruhi is actually about class struggle, or how Dragonball Z is actually a retelling of the Old Testament). The apparently universal applicability of these theories seems to me the best proof that they must be, for the most part, detached from the things they try to talk about. If "clouding the meaning" refers instead to the fact that these approaches frustrate genuine attempts to understand the things being considered, however, then I would agree. It's particularly true in the case of Eva, which has been the (willing) victim of this for years.
Also, I think you may have been slightly confused by my use of the term "articulate." I like this word quite a bit and use it in a number of ways, but here I simply meant it in the sense of bringing to speech (to language). As I said, our unclear (and unarticulated, i.e. unspoken) understandings for shows or books or whatever are perfectly fine most of the time. Philosophy, however, has different requirements. We may, of course, fairly choose not to do philosophy, but assuming we go through with it philosophy will want to discuss such things. Therein lies the whole difficulty, and the whole risk. To bring a meaning to speech is, among other things, to conceptualize it and put it under a terminology. But where are such concepts to be found? Not from any authority, no matter how convincing: this is exactly the fallacy of the approach I just rejected. The only remaining possibility is to gain one's concepts and (as it were) a new way of talking from a confrontation with the matter itself. This is extremely difficult. Ultimately, one needs to work out a kind of poetry (albeit a piecemeal one). The "articulation" of an anime in the way I mean it finally amounts to bringing the meaning of the show to a language rooted in, and negotiated from, the show itself.
In the end, you're right to wonder wonder why I would want to "introduce new concepts to an anime-watching society that is unfamiliar with philosophic interpretation." In a certain sense, I don't. This little polemic should not be considered a call for everyone to interpret anime philosophically; most would find it a bother, and they can get along just as well without wrestling with it. They should close the window, forget about it, and get on with life. This polemic is written, so to speak, for those who are already doing what I describe (whether they know it or not). These are the folks who not only love anime, but also feel some need to discuss what it means. I am trying to allow the relevant readers, whom I assume are already working things through in their own way, to see an alternative to what they may find in their college courses. Formally speaking, this essay has more in common with a kick in the head than a theoretical system of new concepts. ("I am trying to get you to do something," as Ludwig Wittgenstein would say.) Here then is my "method": set free the matter at hand to give itself to you just as it is, and bring it to a poeticizing language drawn from the thing's own logic. Put in that way it risks sounding passe and quite self-evident, but actually carrying it through is the work of a lifetime.
Wayward Warrior
Title: Otaku Legend | Posted 07/15/09 | Reply
I run the risk of being misunderstood as I comment on this excerpt, but such is the joy of the internet. You may quickly reply so that my comment does not run amok.
I understand the piece for the most part, though I admittedly needed to inquire elsewhere about Scylla and Charybdis. After discovering exactly what you were alluding to, I must say I'm impressed with your usage. To be sure, your style certainly makes for a pleasant read. Furthermore, I learned something new, and that's seldom a bad thing.
My understanding of much more of the essay would be marred by my not having seen either Utena or Evangelion, but this excerpt seems understandable without having seen either anime. I feel as though I grasp your intention for the essay; however, I find myself questioning the use of the information provided outside of introducing new concepts to an anime-watching society that is unfamiliar with philosophic interpretation. Though I'll admit, the basis of what you present could be taken outside of philosophic interpretation and applied simply to interpretation in a broader sense. Take literary interpretation, for example. For what you seem to be arguing, the same ideas apply. Unless I'm missing something crucial, which is why I'm commenting.
I'm wondering what more you're discussing in the essay, and I feel as though I'm missing some of your meaning. From what I gather, you're arguing something similar to "Anime must be interpreted carefully so as not to cloud the meaning from the viewing of said anime with outside philosophic influences and so as not to be muddled down by inarticulate statements or lack of a statement at all." If that is the soul purpose of the essay, then I'm missing a greater relevance than that mentioned above, i.e. introducing new concepts to an anime-watching society that is unfamiliar with philosophic interpretation.
However, if that is not the soul purpose of the essay, then I find myself expecting an analysis of the mentioned anime. And if that happens to be the main attraction, so to speak, then I applaud your undertaking and look forward to any future advancements.
I feel as though I'm being harsh, but in light of your desire for publication, I offer this merely out of critique which may be brought up by publishers. Personally, I think the work could very well introduce philosophy and interpretation (analysis) to a new audience.
Once again, I apologize for any misunderstandings, and please feel free to reply if you have any questions or if you wish to correct some of my thinking. As you said, taken out of the context of the greater portion of the essay, this passage loses something, and I'm curious as to what that something is.
~The Curious OnePleiades Rising
Title: Otaku Legend | Posted 06/24/09 | Reply
I for one think that you must complete this. I can't imagine the thought of this just sitting there on your hard drive, unread.
I have to admit that it never really occurred to me that when theory gets into the picture, it could be a cause for concern (to varying degree, I'd say). Theory becoming reflexive and recursive? I hadn't thought that out too far; perhaps because it never really became clear what I've been doing when I was trying to do something along those lines, i.e. think of anime, as opposed to theory. Nevertheless, I'm not planning on bravely tossing theory aside (and I don't think you would either), but I hope to keep in mind that I am working with theory. I've just got to figure out that difficult part of clarifying exactly what it is that's "speaking" to me.
And again, please finish this. We need more of this stuff over here!