Disdain for new fantasy

[Merlion]

Taste is subjective, not objective.

I know. That was my point

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And my point was that since taste is subjective, one cannot draw conclusions about someone's character based on their taste.

One can be quite intelligent yet have truly abyssmal taste.

If it hadn't been destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, I'd be able to post pictures of my grandparents' home for illustration of the point. Both of them were educators, and my grandfather in particular taught History, Math, and a variety of other subjects in the High-Schools and every college & university in the New Orleans area. If he had a textbook, he could teach the class, he said...and proved numerous times.

Despite the fact that they had green velvet curtains in a red-themed room, and orange-ish ones in a green themed room (custom made, delivered and placed in the wrong rooms, and never moved for 40 years), he even managed to teach a college level course on aesthetics, and could not personally understand the fuss made over Erte or Picasso when one could get art from students & starving artist sales.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Well first, I'm not even sure about the some are better than others type. In the end, its really still subjective.

Not really. There are still objective standards that can differentiate one work from another. You can say one guitarist is better than another by how they play their instrument (one may miss notes/chords that the other consistently hits). One writer may be far more effective at communicating ideas than another. Regardless of whether you accept that art can be "bad", it seems strange to me to claim that there is no objective way to claim something as being better than another.

Generally however bad means negative, lousy, worthless, failed, useless etc. And even if a work was inferior to all others of its kind, I dont think that would yet make it any of those things.

I tend to go with "of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient". I'll agree that where you draw the line of "good vs bad" is somewhat subjective, but I also feel there comes a time when something is so inferior you just have to call it bad and leave it at that.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I want in on the anime-hatefest.

WTF is it with the recent prominence of it in the West lately?

In the last fifteen years or so, it seems to me that the influence of Japanese culture on popular culture in the West has grown exponentially.

Most video games seem to have been designed in Japan, many (if not most) of the cartoons on TV are either dubbed anime or domestic copies of the style, Japanese comics and card games are freakishly popular, and it seems like the art in every other webcomic or internet artist's gallery I see displays heavy manga influence.

Japanese culture is alarmingly pervasive in the modern West. What is it about all things Japanese that so fascinates young Westerners?

Now, I don't have anything against the Japanese personally; I spent a little time there a few years back, and I didn't hate it. Heck, I spent three years in college studying the language, and still like to flatter myself with the conceit that I'm pretty good at it. Languages were what I studied in college, and my interest in Japanese was primarily linguistic. The Japanese Culture Envy bug never bit me.

The problem doesn't lie with the Japanese; the blame can be laid at the feet of modern youth in the West.

There's clearly an enormous market over here for Imported Japanese Coolness. Things like anime, manga, Pokemon cards, and Final Fantasy video games wouldn't have so much space given over to them in stores and on the airwaves if there weren't such a huge and hungry herd of cultural disciples, eagerly awaiting the next OAV or card-game expansion. Its ubiquity permeates every facet of the American entertainment industry: toys, games, clothes, books, movies--a portion of nearly every department will be sure to contain a selection of Japanese merchandise, or Japanese-themed merchandise, domestic copies of Japanese stuff, or domestic merchandise that's obviously been heavily influenced by Japan.

It seems like nearly every young person I meet nowadays sports a T-shirt with an anime character, wants to visit Japan, is playing a Japanese video game, wants desperately to learn Japanese, draws a manga-style comic, peppers their speech with Japanese words and phrases, constantly talks about what's happening in Inu-yasha, or has a kanji tattoo. It's almost as if these people wish they were Japanese...

Seriously, what is it about all things Japanese that appeals to people today? What do you find so lacking in your own culture that you find in such abundance in Japan's? What causes you to reject your own heritage and run off to worship at someone else's cultural altar?

Frankly, I'd rather not see my Dungeons and Dragons contaminated by its influence.

I think the reason is that, for the most part, Japanese stuff is better than equivalent American stuff right now.

I mean, look at comics. The American comics industry has been stuck in the rut of a single genre, focusing on the same characters, for decades. There are only three superheroes who deserve any level of popular recognition (Batman, Superman, and Spiderman), and every other superhero is extraneous. And these superheroes have remained in narrative limbo (with stories that have no hope of coming to a happy conclusion) for decades. The only people who care about the rest are the die-hard superhero fans. They are stories that, for a modern reader, have no beginning and no end. Also, there is a distinct lack of new authorial invention.

Japanese manga, on the other hand, has a diversity of genres and new creative talent, constantly creating new kinds of stories and new interesting characters. It is a lot less monolithic, and far more closely resembles the Pulp era of American fiction, with lots of companies producing lots of cheap material very quickly. And, just as the Pulps gave us interesting things like John Carter on Mars, manga is creating new interesting material that appeals to wide audiences. I guess it is proof that a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters is more likely to produce gold than following old formulas. The fact that the author/artists of Japanese manga still maintain ultimate control of the copyright of their works, and full control over the future of their works (if an author gives up on a project, it is dead, and the company can't revive it with a new author), might also play a part in this.

Anime succeeds primarily because it borrows from manga, and other countries arn't even making an attempt worth mentioning to match the anime industry's output and quality. Didn't Disney abandon its 2D animation section in recent years?

Japanese videogames are dominant primarily because the American videogame industry bombed in 1983 or so, and the Japanese company Nintendo seized the opportunity to gain dominance. America has been struggling to keep up ever since. It is not very different from how France, Italy, and Germany used to dominate film, but have not since WW1 destroyed their film industries, and have been struggling to keep up with the US ever since.

Also, as a whole, it is not just Japan which is dominating culture. Korean works are becoming ever more important, even in Japan itself. Works inspired by anime and manga, but purely original to the West, such as ever more popular American Webcomics, are also becoming really influential.

As a whole, I think you have it backwards. It isn't that anime and Final Fantasy sell well because people want Japanese culture, it is that people want Japanese culture because of anime and Final Fantasy.

Does that explain it?

 

[Raven Crowking]

What I am saying is, as far as I've ever known, art is subjective. Wether a piece of art is "good" or "bad" is a matter of opinion.

However, many people here believe a creative work can be objectively "bad". Hobo said he admits many things he enjoys are "crap" but doesnt want RuinsExplorer as the arbiter of what is or isnt "crap." My point is, if your going to believe in the concept of objectively "bad" creative works, who then gets to choose whats "bad" and whats not, since in actuality its all personal opinion?

If something is objectively bad or good, it isn't a matter of choosing. It's a matter of recognizing. And, since we don't have an objective toolset for recognizing good or bad, it isn't science.

This is similar, BTW, to the idea in moral philosophy that there can be an objective "good" and "evil" even if our ability to recognize it as such as subjective at best.

If there is an objective "good" and "bad" in art (or in morality), then it becomes possible to refine our subjective toolset over time, being able to better discriminate between the two. If there is not, no forward motion is possible (if for no other reason than that the term "forward motion" would then have no objective meaning).


RC

 

[Hussar]

I am not talking about "critiquing" it in any academic sense. I am talking about 1) people forming their personal opinion of it and 2) determining wether it has value and merit, which as near as I can tell, all artistic works do.

Which means that we are having a disconnect in terminology. To me, critique has a very specific meaning and has very, very little to do with personal opinion.

Nope. I'm stating that all artistic works have value.

So long as bad is a value, I'd agree with that. Note, I don't equate bad with valueless. Lots of things are bad, but that doesn't mean they completely lack value. Even poorly written prose can contain original ideas that can springboard other writers to better works. Case in point: Tolkein. (I KID I KID!)

And then what happens if you don't like it? Your taste or intelligence are somehow deficient?

Again, this is a major semantic gulf we're having, so I think we're pretty much talking about different topics.

Why? According to who? By what "objective" criteria? And if I like Stephen King better than Shakespear, does that mean I have somehow "inferior" "taste"?

As was mentioned, taste is subjective and has very little to do with quality. Big Mac's may be incredibly popular, but, I'd hardly say that they are higher quality than prime rib. Brittany Spears may sell more albums than many other musicians, but, I'd hardly call her music better.

What are they, who decides what they are, what happens when those people disagree? What happens when a work lives up to some of them, but not others? How far under the "passing grade" can it fall, and in which areas before it is "objectively bad?"

Happens all the time. Heck, look at the MASSIVE body of work that comes out every year critiquing Shakespeare. New concepts and new ways of critiquing come and go. As ideas change, so does our value system of judging a work. Something that may have been panned by critics at the time can become lauded later. Look at Van Gogh. Didn't sell a painting in his lifetime. Now he's considered a master.

Then they arent objective. Unless maybe you are talking about say literature versus music versus painting or some such, but even then, the purposes of all those forms are pretty similar. Only the execution or means is different.

And I notice you give very little mention to the purpose and intent behind works.

That's because authorial intent is meaningless. Authors can be wrong about the meaning of their text. Authors can lie. Authors can be misrepresented. And they can misrepresent themselves. They can even change their minds over time about the meaning of a work. Appeals to authorial intent have been discredited for a very long time.

Heck, earlier in this thread someone pointed to J. K. Rowlings stating that Harry Potter isn't fantasy. Imagine for a second that this is true, that she really said and meant this. Does that mean that Harry Potter no longer belongs in the fantasy genre? Because, if you accept authorial intent, that's what you have to conclude.

If your talking about boat building, or medicine, or rocket science, then yea. Cause those things are objective and have totally objective results of succeeding or failing in their totally objective purposes. But art, by nature, is subjective. Its meant to be experienced, and everyone will experience it differently.

However, there is often a commonality of experience that can be explored. And, again, just because experiences differ, doesn't mean that you cannot quantify elements of that experience. Sure, it's a lot fuzzier than in medicine, but, that doesn't make it purely subjective either.

I am not talking about everything being "good", necessarily. I am talking about all artistic works having value, and the "good and bad" of it being subjective.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I think one of the biggest disconnects here is the idea that if something is bad, then it has no value. That's not true. Star Wars is a bad movie. It's cliche, hackneyed, poorly acted, poorly written, derivative, the works. Yet, it spawned the Summer Blockbuster, some of which have been great movies. So, something that is objectively bad can be subjectively enjoyed and can still have lots of value.

On a side note, I can't remember ever having experienced reading/seeing a book, story, movie or whatever that I felt was "bad" in the way that all of you talk about. I've seen/read plenty that bored me, or that I didnt care for. I've encountered some that put forth views that i disagree with, or even consider to be destructive or wrong. I've been irritated by ones that do things with concepts I am fond of that I don't agree with or like, such as portraying a certain creature in a way inconsistent with its roots.

I've even encountered specific things, actions or other issues in a story that I considered less than skilled writing/storytelling...most commonly in the context of television series some times having a character act in a way at odds with the character's established nature for no discernible reason.

And there are whole types of stories that I don't personally understand why anyone would be interested in them. But I understand that they still are, and that that is valid.

But I cant really remember ever feeling that an entire work was simply "bad", devoid of merit, in its entirety or near entirity.

Try watching the first Dungeons and Dragons movie and tell me that again. Or Hawk the Slayer. Or Dungeonmaster. Or reading a Gor book. Listen to any number of one hit wonder 80's bubblegum pop bands. The list goes on and on. It can't possibly all be good.

 

[Hussar]

If something is objectively bad or good, it isn't a matter of choosing. It's a matter of recognizing. And, since we don't have an objective toolset for recognizing good or bad, it isn't science.

This is similar, BTW, to the idea in moral philosophy that there can be an objective "good" and "evil" even if our ability to recognize it as such as subjective at best.

If there is an objective "good" and "bad" in art (or in morality), then it becomes possible to refine our subjective toolset over time, being able to better discriminate between the two. If there is not, no forward motion is possible (if for no other reason than that the term "forward motion" would then have no objective meaning).


RC

Dammit RC, quit saying things I agree with. It's starting to bug me.

 

[DonTadow]

I wonder how many people are setting up a false dichotomy with regard to anime and D&D. The whole conversation isn't necessarily between the camps of "I love anime and what more of that style of action and D&D" and "I hate anime and keep anything to do with it away from D&D". How about the camp that generally likes Japanese animation, and yet still thinks that its aesthetic doesn't really make a good fit with D&D? By way of a metaphor, I love curry, but that doesn't mean I think curry ice-cream is a good idea.



~breathes the breath of fresh air generated by an actual opinion acknowledged as such~

Personally, I dont really know where people get this whole anime influence on D&D thing. D&D is, and as far as what we know from 4e goes, will continue to be Tolkien, Howard, Lieber and the like.

The simple fact that both anime and D&D have characters that can do wildly superhuman things...thats just sort of an artifact of fantasy/sci fi/etc type stuff it seems

My problem comes with the fact that anime is a broad art style that emcompasses a heck of a lot and a lot of superficial people are talking like orcs
"hair is spiked, must be anime, they make d and d like anime"
Which is the silliest thing I"d ever heard. If Anime were a race, a lot of people would be prejudice. Saying I kinda of like anime but i don't want any of its styles and influences in it is like saying i like black people, but i don't want my daughter marrying one.

I've seen a lot of the art and writing from 4e and i don't see anything that brings up this discussion other than hysteria.

 

[Ranes]

Anime is not a broad art style and far from encompassing a heck of a lot, it defines itself more by what it eschews.

Just sayin'.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Dammit RC, quit saying things I agree with. It's starting to bug me.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


unless it's digitial.......