(Penguindrum I) Authentic apple

Mawaru Penguindrum 2: Wait right there, Ringo, we'll get back to you.

Throughout the Penguindrum series, I’ll return to a concept I don’t like to talk about much, and one I don’t invoke lightly: authenticity.

I want to devote this first installment to explaining what that word means to me. It’s necessary, given that “inauthentic” is one of those terms most often used as a blunt instrument vs. things people don’t like. And, anyway, how can art be “authentic,” which is to say true to life, when it is literally a distillation of the endless, unsolvable complexities of subjective human experience into something comprehensible and, hopefully, entertaining?

How convenient that, lately, I’ve spent otherwise unoccupied time at work reminiscing about how The Once and Future King is really damn fantastic. I think it’s one of my maybe-two favorite fantasy novels. But that’s beside the point — I won’t even demand that you read it, as the following quote hails from the second page of the first chapter, and therefore shouldn’t ruin everything for you. In essence, T.H. White, or the narrator, or whomever you prefer, explains and excuses the use of modern references in an Arthur story:

It was not really Eaton that he mentioned, for the College of Blessed Mary was not founded until 1440, but it was a place of the same sort. Also they were drinking Metheglyn, not port, but by mentioning the modern wine it is easier to give you the feel.

It’s easier to give you the feel. Just like that.

I drop this quote because it represents a general refusal to be authentic in two ways that it’s possible to be authentic. It pretty clearly eschews lit-fic authenticity, the authenticity of recognizing personal minutiae in what one reads, in that it endorses an anachronistic amalgam of present and fantastical past, especially in its characters. But it also does away with the authenticity demanded by fantasy fans, the authentic medieval-Europe-with-magic-ness (for example) of a cohesive setting whose elements all play nice with one another. A strictly believable world, in other words. “Yeah,” White says, “don’t believe this. But don’t worry about it.”

I’m wholly behind The Once and Future King here. I can support a character without reading onomatopoeic descriptions of his lunchtime flatulence. I can support a world that drapes modern sensibilities in medieval trappings. Those are particulars, and I’m not that particular. I forgive stories for always leaving something out; there are only so many pages in the book, only so many episodes in the anime series.

So — with utmost apologies to TV Tropes, which I do enjoy — fuck nitpicking, it’s a story, who cares. I look for authenticity in patterns.

Here, let me show you what I mean.

Mawaru Penguindrum 2

You remember Ringo Oginome, right? She’s that Under Armour-wearing aspiring rapist with the diary.

Mawaru Penguindrum 2

I’m sorry, but it’s true! It (almost) happens twice, no less. And there is a point to my mentioning it. Strictly speaking, Ringo here does not embody the concerns of the average teenager, who probably doesn’t have a magical sister, and probably won’t attempt to use a frog as a date rape drug. And yet, for me, she’s one of the show’s main anchors, one of the points of believability, which is to say authenticity.

Mawaru Penguindrum 2

Yeah, yeah. Don’t let it go to your head.

Think of her problems as broad, colorful renditions or elaborations for fun and profit and SYMBOLISM. Extrapolate a little. They’re quite relatable.

She’s continually overshadowed and stymied by an elder sibling.

She models her life on the contents of a single book, which doesn’t benefit her much.

She’s pubescent, with all attendant frustration. She’s interested in both romance and sex. Her attempts to satisfy these needs by following what she believes to be the rules (fate, as it were) end in hilarious failure. The “good” relationship is the one between her and the guy who sees her at her worst and, at length, loves her anyway.

That’s to say nothing of the expression of her insecurities through the medium of musical theater. It’s so over-the-top! But I buy it entirely. It’s the patterns that matter to me when I try to relate, not the particulars. Maybe I didn’t sing about it, but I’ve wanted desperately to be with someone who I’d convinced myself I was supposed to be with, too.

I don’t even need to tell most of you this, but animation, and cartooning in general, is all about the paradox of using exaggeration to suggest reality. Or, maybe that’s going too far. It’s about using the simplest elements, lines and curves and such, to call upon readers’ experience through their visual vocabulary. Consider Aaron Diaz’s discussions of human figure and posing and hands.

Now apply most of that to plot. That’s what I mean. You don’t have to write about grocery shopping or nose-picking to get people to relate. You can do it with familiar shapes. When family is an apple, it’s still family. When a dork is Lancelot, it’s still a dork. And so on. Sometimes it’s more productive to talk about things that way.

Look, you, it’s not that complicated. By “authenticity” I mean “familiar shapes.” See?

And some are familiar indeed.

Leave a comment


  1. Remind me to comment when I’m a bit more well-rested, I /think/ I have a solitary point to contribute…

    Also, thank you for taking the time to examine this show. I look forward to your future entries!

  2. Great read! I don’t really have much to say other than Ringo is a great character even though she is into “other things” because of her “destiny” That said she kept me watching every week~

    In short bless this post~

  3. cuchlann

     /  9 August 2012

    Did you really have to fucking make it so I had to watch this show? Was that necessary? Really?

    Also, I sort of disliked the first part of White’s novel (Sword in the Stone) when I read it. But then, I was 17, and goodness knows 17 year olds want everything to be authentic. So. Yeah.

    • You’d probably appreciate Sword in the Stone more now, but I have to admit, I think of the first two parts as the openers and the last two as the main event. If you ever teach a modernism class, for whatever reason, put The Ill-made Knight in there.

      I guess my main objective is running my damn mouth, but making people want to watch things is certainly a sub-objective.

  4. Here, “authentic” can just as easily be “realism” and then from ‘on narrative':

    “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.”

    And I think that when these patterns, or “familiar shapes” as you say, aren’t found, or maybe I should say the patterns formed by the anime feel false, then there better be a captivating fantasy behind them, as in some other aspect to carry, or the anime will fall flat (i.e., the suck).

    • Your assessment of it is basically perfect. I was just hesitant to use “realism” here because it has the genre connotations that it does.

      Yeah, in the absence of recognizability, there must at least be a cogent world that follows its own rules, what I was calling the authenticity of fantasy. I might’ve stretched the word pretty thin, but I do think that different people mean different things by it, or that it means different things in different contexts.

  5. I find possibility of authenticity as a [relative] framework within a given story. Whether it manifests as pattern or language of exposition and character, I am less inclined to say. But with authenticity, perhaps in “being true,” we might understand that [partial] truth can be considered objectively false when viewed from a separate frame of reference. The point with Ringo is great because we aren’t meant to settle on her more extravagant attributes when even cast members cannot understand her dark jester mechanics, but there is more to her character. For Ringo, it is not merely the existence of authenticity but the specific points we understand to be true… there’s a kind of strange abstraction to that notion of character.

    • Abstraction is precisely the thing I was getting at. We won’t creep under someone’s house, but we can relate to the gist or the sentiment behind it. The character is very conspicuously a device, or a set of emotional instructions, rather than a “person” to relate to — but I’d argue that semi-savvy consumers think of characters as devices these days anyway, so, even if it’s strange in the grand scheme of storytelling, it doesn’t exactly throw a wrench in the experience.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 373 other followers

%d bloggers like this: