on Narrative (in Art)
"And as the priest who sails to
the lands uncharted to convert the
savage natives to the service of his
God Almighty only to discover in the
process the most stubborn resistance,
my religious zeal was not so thick as
to cloud my vision with illusions of
progress and thus I took to online in
lieu of adding my friends flesh and
blood to the church of anime."
--Precursor to rebuttal
table of contents:
γdead subjective \ populist
on deconstruction \ overture
lost subjective \ academic
state of criticism \ reorder
--the solid art \ unification
mood as enjoyment \ subjectify
of literary worth \ interlude
language of production \ objectify
living subjective \ summary
--catechism for criticism \ translations
issues dictionary \ mistranslations
inferno \ internet
michael's declaration \ epilogue
Plot is a literary term for which the events of a story are composed of,
particularly as they relate to one another in a pattern,
through cause and effect,
as they relate,
therefor, simply events.or by coincidence. (Wikipedia)
or by not;
or with not;
or they may not;
But everything is an event... a fart is an event... a fart is a plot!
The 10year epic odyssey of one lost warrior homeward bound following the fall
of Troy is a plot.
The 1day epic chronicle of the daylife of the city of Dublin (didn't we just do this
one?) is a plot.
The 3cour highschooling of pretty young girls putting off band practice to drink
expensive tea and eat rich cake is not a fart (do not you dare!),
but it is a plot.
Everything is; nothing isn't.
There lies no critical power in the word 'plot'.
To say a work of narrative has 'no plot' is ridiculous:
it cannot be.
To say a work of narrative 'actually has a plot' is ridiculous:
of course it does.
To say a work of narrative is 'plot heavy' or 'plot light' is ridiculous:
plot is always occurring, thus always present, thus can be no 'lighter' in
its' constant occurrence.
To say a work of narrative is 'plot focused' or 'plot unfocused' is ridiculous:
with plot always occurring, always present, plot is always in focus, never
out of focus.
To say a work of narrative has a 'good plot' or 'bad plot' is not ridiculous...
however, those phrases are a language far too ambiguous, carrying little of
the currency of communication.
Let us abandon the ambiguity of the criticism 'lacking plot', choose in the process
a more precise phraseology, and see where that takes us:
The pacing of the plot is too slow (because I'm not interested in anything happening).
Everything that happens plotwise is meaningless (because I care for none of it).
There is no suspense or mystery (for I grow quickly bored otherwise).
There is nothing of interest happening (within my narrow set of interests).
Without any action, there needs to be comedy (I can understand nothing else).
Wait a moment!
Those parenthetical phrases: what are they doing there!? I am not saying any of that
nonsense! Michael, you mean to tell me that there is more to what I say than what I say?
And now we see all there is to see:
that plot is simply an element of narrative (all narrative);
that plot criticism is abused as a stand-in for an exacting critique;
and that for all your posturing at a cultivated rationality, bemoaning the
so-called lack of focus upon plot, there lie a deepseated irrationality, obscured by
that poor choice of words, twisted into sounding like a criticism so basic and
fundamental as to be damning in the absolute, to appear as a loftier critique than
the rants of the damn fool that you may be.
Please speak not of plot again.
WtF is deconstruction?
A work of art that considers the genre norm and opposes it
is not a deconstruction.
(Pretensions only would call it such)
A work of art that considers the genre norm, finds the inherent
contradictions within that norm, and then exposes them
is... not quite Derridian deconstruction, but we'll let it slide.
(As does deconstruction's definition(s))
How does Derrida deconstruct?
With great impenetrability.
I kid, I kid.
(Allow me to state it simply)
The structurality of structure desedimented reveals an originary structure
already complex, irreducibly and unstably so, thus postponing meaning,
metaphysical episteme displaced indefinitely in a process of différance,
differing and deferring though an endless chain of significations,
confounding an interpretative reading beyond its' aporia, evidencing no
exit from the trap of the bricoleur's mythopoetic bricolage of the engineer,
tensions of history and presence, thus exciting a postmodern freeplay.
(That sentence has meaning, I swear!)
Could you try that again?
Imagine that you are a plumber in search of the princess of meaning,
heading in the right direction, and upon arriving at direction's end,
receive the message: "Sorry, but our princess is in another castle!"
The structuralists argue that this princess of meaning is to be eventually
found in world 8-4; the poststructuralists argue that this is not the end,
sending you on yet another quest, neverending, with a final meaning
always out of reach.
(Hey, I tried)
And this is... legitimate?
Within the realm of philosophical discourse, it is quite beyond the scope of
this essay to determine deconstruction's relevance;
though I, with reservations, find the topic fascinating.
(With reservations, with reservations...)
But within the realm of literary criticism, poststructuralist thought must
first be confronted before moving forward with my theories on narrative.
In their own words:
(Or in the words of one renowned critic in particular)
...the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.
The poststructuralists posit that art has no meaning-- sorry, that art has no
singular meaning. (They say the latter, not the former;-)
The poststructuralists posit that the language an author uses does not originate
from within the author, that he merely borrows the language, and thus the
resultant text originates outside the author.
The poststructuralists posit that the meaning of a text is absolutely in the hands
of each and every reader, allowing for each and every separate interpretation of a
text, and thus no singular correct interpretation.
The poststructuralists posit that the author is therefor metaphorically dead
(many of the greats not so metaphorically), and that the reader reigns supreme,
his subjectivity the only thing truly alive.
The author never died.
The reader never needed to be born.
Both are alive and well... and have always been... and will always be. For if we
say that art is a text, then a priori
art must be a communication.
(Could a text originate from a desire other than that of communication? No.)
If the receiver's
reading were to be truly independent, he would need to fully distort the sender's
message, and then there would be no message anymore. Both sender and
receiver- that is, author and reader -are required therein and must be therefor
respected subjects within the exchange.
Again, we view art as a communication.
And criticism of this communication is its' own communication.
Who is the good communicator in criticism?
We call this the reasoned critic, do we not?
Who is 'in line' to be the reasoned critic?
Not author, who, though respected once again in the exchange, carries
with him an obvious bias.
Not the individual reader, who, if criticism is to be a communication, is no
longer alone and wholly the focus.
Not the masses, who, though compromising the full populace of
humanity, do not implicitly critique in reason.
A reasoned critique- by its' named nature -belongs to those who reason, those
whom we may call the elite, but
(this is so very important) these elite must be
founded on reason- and reason alone -not title or class or degree or by decree.
The elite are judged so by their reason,
held to their reason,
are never beyond reason and argument.
The author will not die, but subjectivity will not die either. For like the author
who conveys his subjectivity of the world through art, the critic must convey his
subjectivity of art through criticism,
but in a manner that isn't reading-in what
isn't there, isn't making the author say more than he actually says (I do not hold
only what the author implicitly says as what he says).
This is all a bit tricky; our ground is not so firm.
But it's nice to actually have a ground.
...for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
Everything as either good or bad is
Criticism is the search for thesubjective.
The singular and true, united and whole objective must come about
via incontestable logic or infallible math or divine prophecy. Yet,
within these meager limits of this our human condition,
within a world of order and with a mind full of disorder,
such objectivity (and there will be another momentarily) lies far beyond our
grasp, leaving us with no access- past, present, and (most likely) future -to those
absolutes that we merely reason must surely exist;
thus, we form a compromise:
Purpose the shared subjectivity of those who reason as 'objectivity'.
the metrics of quality are developed... as structures(?)
the birth of a critical collective defines... convention(?)
the canonical texts... sacred idols inviting revolution(?)
we may be remaking an old mistake in criticism(?)
to reiterate mantra machinelike with unquestioning zeal is not
thinking, it is herding / groupthink / nothink / the death of reasoning, that very
thing we hold vital to what ephemeral 'objectivity' we can construct.
But let us not fall back into the trap of nihilism.
Let us escape the past sufferance in another way.
Ergo:this pseudoObjectivity, this palace of greatness we construct, could
become a prison before we know it, with an overreverence paid to the classics
and a snub to those future works that fail to follow in their steed.
Thus:there is more to 'good' than simply 'what has been before'.
we must remain ever vigilant in our pursuit of critical objectivity.
all arguments are allowed, against even the fundamentals.
measurements shown to be lacking are to be refined.
challenges to convention may produce new systems of thought.
To transcend Order (the old canon) / To transcend Disorder (poststructuralism)
The goal of enlightenment was always
Objectivity in art is not the sterilization of that art:
to dissect narrative on an antiseptic sheet, to categorize each organ of the once
alive art independent, to subtract out an element such as setting, to splice the
review score down to the atom of the decimal place,
this is missing the point.
Can a warm impression be understood so coldly?
All of our tools for studying art: they all come into use after the art; they are not
before the art; they are not within the art; they are not of the art.
(They are of criticism, and criticism only.)
What is the point of art, anyways?
Intellection? To impart a fraction of wisdom or to make the viewer reflect or to stimulate
cognition enough to retain interest...
Emotion? To stimulate the heart or to impart a passionate revelation or to make the
viewer shed tears or smile in joy...
Poeticism? To make the viewer drop their jaw at the spectacle or to stimulate a sense of
wonder or to impart aesthetic technique...
Is it truly one over the other two?
(Can you say that wisdom in life is more important than happiness?)
Or two over one?
(Do you not seek out beauty in a lover?)
How about three over none?
...Are these distinctions even distinct from one another?
From the perspective of intellection:
the manipulating of the viewer's emotion,
the development of a complex iconography,
do these not require, originate from, and thus demonstrate intelligence?
From the perspective of emotion:
the ideas that dominate the viewer's thoughts,
the enticingly original visual splendor,
do these not act upon, interlink with, and thus excite emotion?
From the perspective of poeticism:
the philosophy and its' precise wording,
the tension of drama from just the right delivery,
do these not derive from, flourish with, and thus practice poeticism?
The classical breakdown of narrative shows similar signs of interoperability,
meaning that there is no plot devoid of theme, no setting devoid of style, etc etc,
and, at the top level domain, no narrative lacking one of the five elements (thus a
criticism stating that a narrative is missing an element is fictitious nonsense).
Art will not itemize. Art will not array.
Bad <-- A Suspect Scale --> Good
Cold <-- Emotion --> Warm
Silly <-- Intellection --> Smart
Plain <-- Poeticism --> Styled
(Your average pseudo-intellectual inverts the scale at emotion.)
(Either way, these false correlations snare too many people.)
A work of art is more like a solid object, not universally divisible along
predefined lines; any segmentation applied to a work is unique to that work. Art
develops in respect to no universal formula; only a fool would claim that art has
rules. A reasoned criticism must not rely on overarching denominations.
For this, we require a new method.
let me tell about my mood at the moment:
I'm a bit burned out from work, tired of all the constant demands and all the
insensitive demands and all the unreasonable demands and all the bureaucracy
and bullshit and bastards and right now, right this minute, I hate the whole
world maybe more than a little bit...
O, what joy to be found in occurrences most mundane yet containing the
fabric of a quilted happiness gentle as a tender age without worries!New day: I've been reading confoundingly dense poststructuralist
philosophy for some hours, turning my brain into mush, and I can no longer
concentrate on anything outside of obvious...
O, to hear again the swords clash for passions of a youthful heart
with a brash attitude leading straight into the bloodied action!Now mood must not be so narrowly considered as to only embody the 'warmer'
affections, as if the process of thinking was truly independent of mood, as the
pseudo-intellectual believes. What would be marked 'unemotional' is nothing
other than 'emotional': I desire a solemn meditation...
O, to philosophize a future when human nature is upturned
with idiosyncratic visuals reflective of that dislocation!Finally, my choices of entertainment are not always so reactionary, and I may
enter into a presentation with a blank slate or maybe a taste on my tongue for
something slightly different than what I am about to experience...
O, let the tears flow forth for the shattered life of a soul
purely innocent and underserving of a fate so cruel!A certain mood in art is not always being sought after, and yet, the emotions,
when well conveyed, connect and overwhelm me.
Art influences. Therefore,
satisfied with these pursuits into fantasy, I fully transport myself into another
is this anything other than what we would call 'good'?
To capture the mood is good
The best art never fails in its' aim to transport you and to affect you, whether that
effect is a cognition, an emotion, or a painted poeticism to wow you.
To break the mood is upsetting
A tonedeaf art loses its' focus, inserting comedy into the climax of tragedy, or
unwinding a mystery into an idiocy, missing the mark completely.
To obscure the mood is tragic
To have a finely conveyed work ruined by a rogue element running concurrent
with the narrative, inescapable, damning everything around it.
To never find the mood is to lose the viewer
Whether it be forced or faked, if we deem the emotions to be false, if we deem the
concepts to be dumb, if we deem the style to be overbearing, we will never care
for that narrative, we will never feel for that art.
But what of the man who cannot connect with a certain mood, no matter how
well it is conveyed?
What sway can a man's opinions then hold, if his opinions are the kind to be
swayed away by the mood so absolutely?
When a man goes on to say that a comedic or a bombastic or a electrified work
can never move him, and that only a reserved work can be considered
'true art', can that be anything but mere subjectivity?
Furthermore, can we believe that man able to sort out which among the reserved
works are truly quality, or does he believe that even the weakest among
them are quite amazing or at the least better than other genre's works?
Who is the man that is correct when he says: good or bad?
Is there any man that is
prize designation that all written works of fiction with a supposed
aim towards artistic relevance (and not an aim towards maximizing sales) strive
so omnipresent a measurement of quality that even other mediums of art
present their best against it
('so good you could call it literature').
What is this 'literature'?
How about: what is not literature?
Not scienc-- sorry, speculative fiction, that fiction of ideas.
Not genre fiction, that fiction of... genres... romance, thriller, you get it.
Cast them out of the ivorycolumned halls of the pantheon of literature. These cheap and
worthless forms of mere entertainment do little more than pander to the insipid masses.
This is as determined from the perspective of the most enlightened perception of those
who know better, so they say.
(they say? they who?)
So then... literature: the genre (xO______O) of... hmm, umm... intellectual...
...stuff that gets you thinking (like ideas!... crap)... the human condition...
...well, it sure be well written, I say that!
But this jig is so very obvious and obnoxious and a bit too trite, and me
continuing to play the fool would incite my dwindling audience further, so how
about we focus on that last bit:
literature is well written.
What more to it need there be?
A well written
science fiction novel portraying a future in which passivity
and pleasure devolve the human race of free thought
can be literature.
A well written
romance novel portraying a love affair between a geisha
and a married man visiting her hot springs town in winter
can be literature.
A well written
can be literature.
what is *well written*?
More than the prosody & poeticism (though that too),
more than the tricks & puns & obscure references,
more than the complicated words,
*well written* is choosing the right words.
to expose the subject...
to cleave the readers to their very core...
(and a viewer is a reader; more on that in a moment)
the mastery of the auteur
who connects the subject with the reader: that is *well written*.
These words: they are much more than written words:
the events of a story, they too are words,
the actions of a character, the sceneries of a world,
the themes interwoven, the styles on display,
all within a narrative do function as words.
In fact, the wording of a narrative is the narrative:
no plot is a plot unexpressed,
no character, no setting, no theme, no style,
nothing within a narrative is itself unexpressed,
everything within a narrative must be written and expressed.
This means, within the audiovisual realm, there exists a language:
every event on the screen is a sentence to convey,
every visual flare, every angle in the composition,
every musical accompaniment, every tone in a spoken line,
every aspect of the visual and the audio is a language full of words.
And all of these words contribute to one goal:
to communicate the narrative.
The artistic value is in communication,
communication of the artwork's core.
That core is the mood
approached by the art,
whether that mood be one
directed at intellection, emotion, or poeticism.
In a way, we will say that mood is genre.
Yes, the database elements of a narrative are not its' genre,
because 'kinetic intensity' tells me much more than 'magical girl' does.
The message subsides to its' language in the act of criticism.
(A short tangent: the medium is not the message. Every spoken language, such
as English or Japanese, has its' own structures and styles, its' own quirks and
unique qualities. Would we say those humans who speak one language live
different lives than those who speak another? While every artistic medium
exhibits assorted language constructs absent elsewhere, such as the 2d canvas
in anime, those mediums each have a full vocabulary; each can say the same
message, conveying the message all the same, even by using different words.)
The message is the message,
but how the message is conveyed is the artistry.
So we identify a work's core, and determine what words convey that core as
intended, and what words oppose the core. We rate the wording of the core;
we do not rate the core itself.
There is no one true form.
There is no one absolute technique.
Such fascism is the death of art.
The final determination- avoided thus far and to be expounded upon in greater
detail in the final sections -is the marking of 'the right words', what is 'right' as
being determined by... whom?
history? convention? popularity? elitism?
In the end, determination of the 'right' words falls to the self, the reviewer, his
subjectivity; but this judgement asks for an objective-like movement the reviewer
need practice, to explain his subjectivity in communicable terms. This
restriction, placed upon the individual in the act of communication (which is
criticism itself), alters the landscape of his internal disposition.
From where poststructuralism sought to reenter, there it meets ultimate defeat,
one final time:
for if all criticism is to be negative (read: destructive), criticism becomes
passé, of little interest, for then it will always move in a single direction, always
predictable, and thus of no consequence to the freethinker;
for criticism to be positive (read: constructive), it must determine an ideal
and measure the work against that ideal, that ideal which can never be
universal, but can be founded on a rationality, whether borrowed or original;
therefor, the good critic does form an ideal (breaking from poststructuralist
thought), an ideal which he can communicate well to the reader, an ideal that the
reader- even if that ideal is different from his own -can accept.
And this is my ideal:
So various intellections and emotions and poeticisms that art is capable of
are not evenly distributed nor rankable,
and every formation and permutation is a different mood,
and for every kind of mood there exists a genre,
and all of these genres have a potential,
and that potential is a full communication,
and the quality of a narrative is in reaching that potential,
and all of these potentials are equal;
exclaim this truth loud and proud: ALL GENRES ARE CREATED EQUAL.
And the works within them are not.
And this is our 'objectivity'.
Does being objective mean interring your own subjective thoughts?No, objectivity simply means, as best we can define it--
no, to be truthful, objectivity means, as I would like to see it:
that you rate a work against itself in some respects
and not against yourself in all respects.
What is the endgoal of this 'objectivity'?To express your subjectivity on a work of art to others, mindful of:
a) your biases in genre opposed to a general genre unbias of a full audience;
b) the full wording employed by the work as that relates to its' own core goal;
in the end, remaining faithful to your own desires as well as those of the work.
How are we to determine what is the 'core' goal of a work?For me to claim that 'the core of a work is self-evident' would be troublesome, but
I am tempted to say that the work makes its' core obvious to the viewer and there
is little to debate towards that end;
but if you refuse me this and consider the
determination of the core to be subjective, then the objective-like review would
make a convincing case for what its' author feels is that core.
What could you be reading into the core that isn't already there?By example:
If a conflict in the plot consists of arguments puerile and transparent, and the
reviewer filters this conflict through the entirety of western philosophical
tradition, pretending that this is what the author of the work intended to do...
this is what we call 'bullshit'.
(This is likely only ever done when the reviewer,
fascinated by the author's intelligence elsewhere, such as with artistic visuals,
seeks to further the work's brilliance into corners where there is none.)
How are we to determine whether or not the work's language services its' core?This is certainly easier if the critic is both:
a) receptive to the core mood
b) but not in a manner in which the chords of the core mood are always struck.
If you lose yourself within the work then all is good, but if the immersion never
occurs, then you must discuss what woke you from your dreamlike fantasy.
And you think that the poststructuralists will let you get away with this ambiguity?There is no one correct criticism. (That we agree on.)
There is, however, a communicative criticism that transcends differences and
unites even those who disagree. (This is the best we can aim for.)
How can subjective criticism become a fine criticism?In the process of writing, you would be wise not to confuse
opinion for fact
and fact for opinion.
Is there such a distinction between fact and opinion in criticism?If I were to state that '
this is my opinion; you must allow me this
' this would destroy all common logic between us, and we would then be unable
to discuss anything.
Where lies the line between fact and opinion in criticism?For instance:
'fluid animation' is exactly as it says: animation that is fluid, and calling it
'bad animation' would be unacceptable, a false fact that you may not
guard with the shield of opinion.
Is there no place for opinion within the facts of criticism?Indeed there is:
you may say that the style of animation, though fluid, does not suit your
tastes, that it is an 'unenjoyed animation', and if this is said in the form of
opinion and not claimed as fact, then it is fine.
What is the key to an enlightened critique?Knowledge of the subject matter at hand, with that knowledge accruing from
experience, a history with the subject (and the poststructuralist cringes at the
such as having seen enough animation to recognize fluid
animation and not mistake beautiful keyframes for beautiful animation.
What is the lock to an enlightened critique?Ignorance of yourself,
not understanding your biases or how you personally affect the narrative;
ignorance of others,
ignoring their personal perceptions when attempting to explain your own.
Of what good in everyone must we come to understand?That a person's feelings about a work are the truth,
the one truth to them that is right and
honest, at least while nested inside of them, despite how these feelings may differ
from yours, which are not universal.
And what of these true feelings, once released outside through criticism?That rightness and honesty often become lost in translation, for to write a fine
criticism is not to write the one correct criticism (again, that does not exist) but to
write the whole of your heart using the right and honest words, those words of
understanding between you and others;
it would be wise to watch your wording.
What often dishonest and distorted words most displease this essay's author?
The classical breakdown of narrative, butchered continuously and endlessly by
those who misread its' purpose, contains terminology that needs realignment in
the common tongue:
plot (plot) n. The events of a story, all stories, not just certain stories with
certain moods. One can't simply deny the privilege of plot to those works he
does not personally enjoy. See section alpha (above).
pace (peys) n. Was the pace truly laggard, or was the critic never
entertained to begin with? Too many plotlines with a perfect pace have been
slandered 'slow' simply out of disinterest with the material.
character development (kar-ik-ter dih-vel-uhp-muhnt) n. Characters need
not always change or 'grow'; not every work is a coming of age story. A fine
character need only fulfill his role in the narrative, whether deep or shallow.
character likability (kar-ik-ter lahy-kuh-bil-i-tee) n. Confused with
character quality: one with a poor personality, vulgar or annoying, may in fact
posses a deep psychological profile and be perfectly executed within his role.
Sometimes, words are misused in an attempt to convey a subjective honestly,
and the words fit their intended meaning only tangentially:
emo (ih-moh) adj. When a character acts down & out *for no real reason*,
so the work can arrive at a desired mood (but via faked means). Too often is any
character with any genuine life disorder misdiagnosed with this.
melodrama (mel-uh-drah-muh) n. Drama without any basis, such that it is
magnified beyond its' honest effects. In a moment of cruel tragedy, if one cries
aloud in the throes of suffering, that is not melodrama; that is reality: real drama.
realism (ree-uh-liz-uhm) n. I have seen the story of a man turning into a
beetle called the truest biography ever written. Existence is absurd, and when a
critic begs for 'realism', he may be begging for a lie.
Next come words that have a meaning distorted by the author for no other end
than to attack a good work of art:
manipulative (muh-nip-yuh-ley-tiv) adj. Is a work of intellectualism
manipulative, in that it gets you to think using the 'cheapest of tricks': deep
philosophical reasoning? A term used only to hate on emotional works.
pander (pan-der) v. Does a work of intellectualism pander to the
intellectual, giving him exactly what he wants and never challenging him
outside of his comfort zone? A light & fun work is brilliant in its' own ways.
I will not give an entry in this redefinitions dictionary to the word 'pretentious',
for I feel it has a much needed use: to save the works of true brilliance from those
that mask themselves in the rhetoric of obtusity only to appear as anything other
database animal (dey-tuh-beys an-uh-muhl) n.
superflat (soo-per-flat) adj.
anything out of Hiroki Azuma's mouth (boo'l-shit) n.
marxist postmodern technique, blaming capitalism for... something,
anything really... here it will be the shallowness of moe anime, with otaku as
animals wandering the wild of the internet, coldly checking off database-like
aspects of girls (there is nothing else to anime), thus the so-flat-it's-'super'flat
genre medium of anime... and this is what passes for 'intellectualism' today?
This miscalculation deserves its' own essay in the future.
Often offered up as words of wisdom- gems of knowledge passed down -these
phrases embody concepts either taken to be true (they are not), or taken to be a
fault to be avoided (this is false):
show, don't tell (shoh, dohnt tel) v. THE book on white whale hunting
spends many of its' chapters 'telling, not showing' and is considered one of the
greatest works of literature for doing so. Tell all you want, if you can tell well.
Gainax ending (gahy-neks en-ding) n. Cleancut and happy denouements
are truly unfathomable in so many more cases. Subtlety and ingenuity should
not be considered a pox; let us accept their boldness.
artist interference (ahr-tist in-ter-feer-uhns) n. You may have had to wait
three years for a sequel, but a newcomer will never understand your 'righteous'
rage. The art is not the artist; review the former.
And calm the fuck down.
Yes indeed, denizens of the net, calm down
the world will spin on, the world will spin on.
The internet is SRS BSNS, you joke
the internet is not real life;
but it is.
These are people, and these are their opinions, and must we attack them, hurl
expletives at them, and pretend like nothing really happened, that we were just
insulting 1s and 0s, and there's no human emotion, no human frailty on the
other end, hurting from your salvo?
Sometimes I want to say that:
'The internet is like a squatter settlement in Dante's Inferno.'
Troll with all the biting irony that you can muster
'you cried there? ha! I laughed'
for there will be no genuineness within you
anyone who disagrees is a fanboy
condemn those who think otherwise
do a barrel lol to escape responsibility
curse out all communication
hate begets more hate
call all who differ a1
So much hate
So much hate bred off of a misunderstanding,
or a lack of desire to understand.
How can we communicate if we cannot understand? How can we occupy any
high ground if we cannot accept? Where is intelligence to be found in ignoring
so much? Where is intelligence to be found in ignor-ance?
You will never come to understand art if you ignore so many of its' genres.
You will never come to be considered brilliant if you are so inexperienced.
Immaturity is just that: inexperience
so much high talk about things they simply do not know
a certain sense of superiority that could only originate from ignorance
volume will not impress
ego will not impress
posture will not impress
none of your nonsense will impress in the face of experience.
The ant's a centaur in his dragon world.
Pull down thy vanity...
It's amazing the hallucinatory superiority you'll find in the writing of whom I
can only accept the designation of 'hater' to label, let's say those who bash moe,
(here I mean that ever troubled term 'slice of life')
who call it a lesser art, for a lesser man
(pay special attention to that last part;
it matters). How can a human being misread another so poorly? Were we not
made from the same clay? Can you not see when I smile that there is something
genuine and beautiful going on there?
Accept the mood as it brings joy to others
don't disparage those others in spite of you missing the mood
there is intelligence in the crafting of this joy
there is emotion in the experience of this visual style
there is poeticism in the quiet contemplation of life
and no database can contain this
what could a database element be without the emotion
without the artistry to bring it to life!
again, life! will not be snuffed out by some, some
some postmodern academic
some populist online soapbox
because this is my life! my one single solitary life!
and I will not bend it to your ideal!
おめでとう おめでとう おめでとう
This article, everything that I have written here, everything that I have created or
borrowed, what reality I've captured and what reality I've distorted, none of it
can break free from the orbit of subjectivity. But therein lies the power behind all
of these words, right there in the moment they falter from grace:
These are my words.
This is my subjectivity.
What of yours?
The writing style on display here can be considered an original(?) mix of prose and poetry, trying to make prose more like poetry but keeping it as prose, a sort of poetic prose, let's say prose with some tricks and methods borrowed from poetry; blame Ezra Pound and his Cantos, for they are the main inspiration. (And isn't this easier to parse than over 9000 paragraphs all dressed the same and marching in tight formation?)
I've been working on this theory and its' communication on and off for several months, trying to tackle both poststructuralist and populist criticism in one go, and like Pound said of his Cantos: I found great difficulty in making it 'cohere'. This is my final and best attempt; I hope you can extract something of substance from it, something you can mold into your own and pass on to others. (While my main argument may be troubled and less solid than I would like, I believe much is said along the way that makes this whole project worthwhile.)
alpha -- Odyssey, Ulysses, and K-ON! all are plots
overture -- yes, I actually wrote that definition for Derridian deconstruction myself; enjoy my pomo generative grammar OH NO HE DIDN'T!
beta -- n/a
gamma -- n/a
i -- n/a
ii -- Strawberry Marshmallow, Bleach, Kaiba, and Air satisfy my various moods
interlude -- Yuno is all wideface at me playing the fool; Brave New World and Snow Country are literature
iii -- [spoiler] is an intense mahou shoujo
summary -- n/a
1 -- a 'respected' blogger read heavy philosophy into [C]'s foolish economic narrative...; a 'prominent' blogger called Nichijou cheaply and poorly animated...
2 -- Metamorphosis is realer than real; Moby Dick tells all it wants; Shinji is not emo; Eva's end is brilliant; Kyoto Animation is a studio full of professionals, and they should be commended
3 -- italicized quote from Canto 81 of Ezra Pound; 'congratulations' from Neon Genesis Evangelion
epilogue -- n/a
return to homepage