Michael is Low on Hit Points
Lucky Star is indeed a slice-of-life, Mr. Baka-Raptor
- Posted November 9th, 2009 at 11:23 AM ET
- Subjects Lucky Star
- Tags short editorial
- Image sources
1- Lucky Star [moe imouto] - Video searches
none
Slice of life anime series can be serene and peaceful. That's why when danger approaches, I'm ready to go to war to protect that very peaceful serenity. All joking aside, a certain comedic dinosaur has put forth a challenge on the usage of the term slice of life. Never one to back down, here I go.
First off, read (yes all of it!) the post in question from Baka-Raptor.
*ahem* Wrong!
The overarching structure and feel of Lucky Star is slice of life. We follow normal girls through their normal day-by-day doing mostly normal things. There is no overarching story or plot; none at all. This is quite literally a slice out of their lives.
Yes, Lucky Star is also a comedy. As Baka says, nearly every single scene is a comedy set piece. Is every scene in your life a comedy set piece? While some may say my life is a joke, no not really. But this isn't Italian neorealism. This is slice of life. The rules are a bit different.
So what are the rules of slice of life? Dictionary.com does not lay out the rules for an anime genre. You see, like it or not, this is the term the community picked for such a series. Are we really going to argue over the use of English language terminology? Because those arguments could go on our whole lives and get us nowhere but to a quick headache.
And really, that's not the point Baka actually wishes to make anyways.
Let's focus on what really matters here. Baka really disdains counter arguments to his impressions along the lines of "it is what it is" and "you're viewing it wrong." This is the real meat of the discussion, and this is where I also think that he is wrong... to a point.
Baka is not an unbiased critic; he writes his opinions and impressions. He might not "see the beauty in the ordinary and think it's the greatest thing in the world," and that's fine. I certainly can't -- and won't -- begrudge him his own opinion.
Baka's bias (every opinion is some form of bias) is that the slice of life setup is no big deal. What he wants are other things from the anime he watches, and he will -- due to his bias (not a bad word) -- view these anime solely by those other aspects. Thus, Lucky Star needs to be funny, or have compelling characters, or have etc., etc.
His opinion is not invalid simply because he refuses to view Lucky Star through the lens of slice of life. But in replying to his critiques, I'm going to put forth my own opinions and thus, biases. And I will naturally realign the argument to them. Thus comes along "it is what it is."
For me, the slice of life elements are important- nay, they are the most important thing. Lucky Star was designed as a slice of life (and a comedy too). The series was designed to appeal to fans of this genre (as well as fans of otaku-related stuff, fans of etc., etc.). If Baka doesn't like the show, he's more than allowed to state why he doesn't like it.
But that's just his view. An opinionated view. Not an unbiased critique. If he were feigning an unbiased critique and ignoring the slice of life angle, then he would deserve to be hit not so much with a "you're viewing it wrong," but with a "you're reviewing it wrong."
But Baka is an opinion writer. Lucky Star "is what it is" -- a slice of life comedy -- and if he doesn't like the other elements enough, then that's fine and dandy. These are his impressions, nothing more. But in response, I will not ignore the slice of life angle, nor should I. Those are my impressions. And thus I will go with the slice of life angle in my impressions.
The final note that I want to touch upon is when he complains that slice of life fans don't distinguish between good and bad slice of life anime. That's not exactly true, but I'll provide a counter point nonetheless. The elements these shows have -- by definition -- appeals to our interest. All of them are great, because they all naturally contain "what we want." And that's what you really define as good, isn't it?
1 Yumeka
Usually slice-of-life shows have at least something else going for them besides just following the day-to-day lives of the characters in a non-fantasy setting. These day-to-day lives have to have something to spice them up. In Lucky Star's case, there's the comedy and otaku humor. For other shows, there's romance, drama, etc,. I don't think there's any anime I would say is just slice-of-life and nothing else.
2 kadian1364
"The elements these shows have -- by definition -- appeals to our interest. All of them are great, because they all naturally contain 'what we want.'"
This may be all good and true, but liking something for the elements inherent in the show and making genre definitions are two entirely different things. Baka-Raptor never said you couldn't like Lucky Star or other similar titles, but the foundation of his whole argument was that Premise does not make a genre. Execution does.
An example of premise: high school girls goes to class, listens to lectures, does school work, talks with friends, and has fun around town. This could describe Azumanga Daioh or Lucky Star, but also Someday's Dreamers: Summer Skies. It'd be hugely misleading to equate the first group with the second, since Azumanga Daioh and Lucky Star are, in practice, primarily comedy skits and only lightly peppered with s'life moments, while Someday's Dreamers is, in practice, the most pure, unembellished example of the s'life genre I can think of. Yet Someday's Dreamers is the kind of show that's too "slow and boring" for most anime fans to follow, even for those supposed proponents of "slice-of-life".
If all you're looking for is an umbrella to classify the things you like in Lucky Star and similar titles without having to laboriously explain said elements repeatedly, call it "4-koma adaption" or "high school girls comedy", and leave the real slice-of-life series be.
Re Michael is LoHP
@ Yumeka
Of course, and the same could be said about any other genre. No show is pure action or pure drama or even pure comedy. They all have more than one element composing their makeup. That's one of the reasons classification is a pain in the ass.
@ kadian1364
"Premise does not make a genre. Execution does."
Which is why I said "that's not exactly true" when addressing why fans such as I seem to like all slice of life. We don't like them all, but a good number of the ones we're likely to have seen are all quite good. They execute.
All three series you mention have different elements to them. Azu and Lucky Star are quite close in execution. Summer Skies eschews the comedy, and inserts drama and magical girl, among other things. Nevertheless, they all contain slice of life elements. They all can be called slice of life, among other things.
Personally, I'm not looking for an umbrella classification. I'm just addressing elements of slice of life. However -- to be truthful -- your classifications would both be insufficient. I'm sure many people would -- and have in Baka-Raptor's comments -- lump Strawberry Marshmallow in with Azu and Lucky Star. However, Marshmallow is neither a 4koma (it's a normal manga) nor a high school girls comedy (they're little kids and school is not the center of the show).
3 gia
This is a constant issue for reviewers: how much can you, and how much SHOULD you, step back from your own feelings when reviewing material? Kanon, for example, might be a superb example of a moe harem drama. But if you don't like moe harem dramas, you won't enjoy it.
So, you sit down, you watch Kanon, you don't like moe harem dramas, you don't like Kanon. You sit down at your blank screen and get ready to write a review. Do you focus on the fact that you, personally, did not like Kanon, reviewing it as though it were simply an anime, without focusing on genre, and including your personal opinion? Or do you remove yourself from the process as much as possible and detail why Kanon is an excellent example of the genre it sits in?
This becomes a tougher decision when you factor in your audience. Depending on the publication you're writing for, and the tone it features, your responsibility could lean more towards being entertaining than towards being unbiased. That's particularly true for blogs, which tend to rely heavily on their tone, whatever that tone may be.
Everyone winds up doing something different. I try hard to give my own personal opinion without regard to genre, but then to also address that matter ("[XYZ show] isn't really the kind of show that I enjoy, but people who do like this genre will find the following merits," etc). But sometimes even that makes a review seem wishy-washy ("well, *I* hated it, but I guess a couple of you might probably like it, maybe").
In my opinion, it's hard to come up with a blanket "right" answer on this one, since it depends so heavily on who you're writing for in the first place.
4 kadian1364
"high school girl comedy" could easily be changed to "school girls comedy" or "school life comedy", but its a matter of word play. My point was that we could all adopt much more precise and specific genre classifications than to continually water-down the phrase "slice-of-life" to utter meaninglessness. Specifically, Lucky Star is primarily comedy, other genre classifications secondary, which gets it mixed up with other shows which are actually s'life first and foremost.
5 Baka-Raptor
"It is what it is" means you shouldn't judge a show based on what you've heard about it, what you expect from it, or what you think it should be. You just watch the show and judge what you see. I agree with that 100%.
What I'm staunchly against is using the "it is what it is" line as a genre argument or cheap attempt to ignore criticism while sounding objective. Using "it is what it is" as a genre argument defeats the purpose of "it is what it is" because it brings preconceptions and other external factors into your judgment of a show. Something along the line of "it's a slice of life! It is what it is!" is asking you to your bias your judgment based on what you think a slice-of-life show is supposed to be. It's not asking you to make a judgment based solely on the product before you. Using "it is what it is" to stubbornly defend a show against any and all criticism while trying to sound objective about it is just petty. I realize that's not what you're trying to do, but I'm seeing it all the time, especially with regard to K-ON.
Re Michael is LoHP
@ gia
I think this largely depends on what you're personally going for in that particular review. If you're aiming for a more impersonal, unbiased, journalistic take, then you have to take into account a lot of different viewpoints as you write. There, I believe you're looking more for execution and less for emotional response.
But that's no fun! Since we're talking blogs here, putting your impressions, how it affected you, your very persona into a post is what works best. Of course, I don't think that it hurts to throw up a few disclaimers. That way, people know what biases you're working off of. I find it less being wishy-washy and more being open about yourself.
Sooooo... basically what you said!
@ kadian1364
I don't see how classifying Lucky Star as slice of life is watering down the phrase. There's no way that it is. Lucky Star is slice of life. If we start to constrict the classification for slice of life to something so precise that no series truly qualifies, then that will be truly diminishing it.
As for what Lucky Star primarily is, I would disagree. Comedic elements take place within a slice of life structure. Once again I point to the setup (normal girls doing normal things within a normal day-by-day timeline). Sure, the great majority of scenes are rigged for comedy, but the entire series premise is slice of life.
@ Baka-Raptor
I definitely see where you're coming from in that post. It sucks to put forth your own honest critique and simply get a platitude back as if your whole opinion was less than that. In other words, I would not reply to your critique of K-ON! simply with "it is what it is." But I would say that K-ON! contains slice of life elements -- along with a certain feel -- that I enjoy greatly. There's also plenty of other good elements which I need not go into not now, seeing as our discussion lies elsewhere.
Objectiveness is a real bitch. I think in some part most of us try to be it, but that's not even remotely possible for most of us. I can not be objective when discussing K-ON! That's fine, because no one else is all that objective with it either. But seeing as K-ON! is giving a good portion of the otaku population a good time, I don't think you can say that it objectively sucks. There are things that it does extraordinarily well that give it the praise that it gets.
And no -- before anyone else interjects -- it is not a "slobbering devotion" to Kyo-Ani. You didn't here much about Munto, did you? Where was the devotion then? In the end, it didn't get any because it didn't deserve any. K-ON! got praise because it deserved praise. Not because it was made by Kyo-Ani. And not simply because it was labeled -- whether you think the shoe fits or not -- a slice of life.
For you it's "it is what it is." For me it's "Kyo-Ani, slice of life fanboy." They're both quick and easy shots against an opinion, regardless of whether they're anywhere close to being on point.
6 TheBigN
My opinion is that Lucky Star is a comedy anime with slice of life elements, where the focus of the show is to try to make us laugh first and foremost. What builds up the jokes comes second, and in this case, it's the more true to life situations that are supposed to be the source of the humor. I put more points down in my post as to why I think so, if this isn't enough. :P
Re Michael is LoHP
@ TheBigN
I'm going to be honest with you. I read some of your post (before I got lost). I read some of Owen's post that you were commenting on. I don't get his or your use of macro/micro. I don't think you guys are using those terms right, or are at least reaching in their use. As it is, I don't have a clue what either you or him are trying to say. Sorry.
7 0259
meh. moe and fanservice shows dont deserve the praise they get
Re Michael is LoHP
@ 0259
Oh yes they do. A good series is a good series is a good series, regardless of genre.