There’s a constant kerfluffle in the otaku-rhombus, and everywhere in nerddom, actually, concerning criticism. Specifically, many nerds want it kept out of their entertainment — despite the fact they engage in it constantly. Academics have similar kerfluffles, honestly; many’s the time I’ve heard a professor complain about “jargon.” Inevitably only the schools of thought they dislike use “jargon;” their preferred schools of thought don’t engage in it. Anyway, this is the first in a series of entries meant to extend an olive branch in the best way a scholar knows how: through teaching and learning together. In this series, we’ll be describing different “schools” of critical thought, how they work, where they came from, what they do, how they’re useful, and so on. We’ll even apply a bit of the theory to familiar texts to illustrate how this is supposed to work from a literary point of view — and remember, literature is just entertainment, so criticism is simply thinking about entertainment. Why? To be further entertained! This post specifically is part of that most dreaded (as most [un]familiar) world, the post-something-or-other. This time, post-structuralism.

Carl Sagan once posited that many Americans (he not having a lot of experience being a citizen of any other countries) distrust science because it requires background reading. To engage in science one must do the up-front work. Literary criticism is similar: many people avoid it simply because they don’t want to do the background reading to know which post-structuralist said what and what we people think of it now. Of course, really, criticism is simply careful and loving thought about something you love, but the background reading provides a platform of similarity from which everyone can begin.

That paragraph serves to introduce this paragraph, specifically, structuralism. As the name implies, post-structuralism is a response to structuralism (these names are awkward yes, but at this point they’ve stuck). So. Ferdinand de Saussure was a French linguist who lectured on the nature of language. If you only take one thing away from Saussure, it must be this: language is arbitrary.

For us, in the year of our flying spaghetti monster 2010, that seems obvious, perhaps even trite. We’ve likely all had that moment of realization, that a word only means something because we decided it does. If you’ve studied a language not native to you, you almost certainly understood this at some level. However, back in the early 1900s this was a little revolutionary. Linguistics was a branch of history, studying where a word came from — all the way back to Latin or Greek if it’s a respectable word. Most people thought of language worked in the way that’s sometimes called the “Adam” principle. That is, Adam named the beasts and the bird and the seas. So a thing’s name was a part of the thing. Think of any fantasy you’ve read or seen where someone’s true name is a handle to the person. It’s the same principle. Saussure described the system of thought on language that, which, with modification, rules today.

Specifically, language is arbitrary. But also specific. Language isn’t simply “made up” in the way nonsense words are. Language is arbitrary, but at the same time everyone must agree on the arbitrary decisions. Imagine a game where a move counts for three points in player A’s rules, but five points in player B’s. A and B can’t play a game until they agree on one common system.

Saussure used a famous diagram that, as a whole, represents a sign — a sign is a language unit, basically. The signified is the thing to which the word is applied, like a tree. The signifier is the word applied to it, such as “tree” or “ki” or “arbor.” Both together actually make the sign, because when we hear the word we designate as appropriate, we think of a tree. Not some Platonic ideal tree, but a tree, maybe one we’ve seen every day, or a special tree (maybe the one you climbed in as a child, or the one that was blasted by lightning in your back yard).

That’s how an individual sign works. All of them work in a system, where each one means something because it doesn’t mean anything else.

That’ s a little weird, but think on it for a moment. “Tree” means a plant with bark and leaves because it does not mean an animal with four legs that chases cars. Without contrasting words, a single word would be useless, as it could expand to be everything. In fact, that’s why we have so many binaries. “Everything” itself is what isn’t “nothing.”

Now, the sign is fine, as far as it goes. But poststructuralist theorists focus their magnifying lenses upon the signifier in particular, assuming in part that signifiers are all we can really work with. This may sound like an almost existentialist argument, but, in “…That Dangerous Supplement…” (or, more affectionately, “…That Highbrow Essay About Masturbation…” or “…That Essay Titled Kind Of Like an Aria Episode…”), Derrida turns it into a matter of “mere” linguistic mechanics.

The basic idea here is that, in attaching a signifier to a signified, or a sound-image to a concept, or what have you, we’re doing two things: 1. creating a relationship between ourselves and the signified, which can only exist via the supplementary signifier, and 2. creating another “terminal” signified, to which we can only relate with another signifier. Of course, your mileage may vary regarding how “basic” an idea this is, but it’s really not that wild, and we can apply it to many fandom concepts with which we’re already familiar.

Consider, for example, one binary that anime often approaches: life/death. Many of us have encountered the idea that death gives meaning to life, and while the idea as it shows up in anime probably has more to do with Eastern philosophy than with Derrida, it’s a good example of what Derrida means by supplementation. A deconstructionist might tell you that death gives meaning to life precisely due to the arrangement of the two words-and-or-ideas in the life/death binary: life happens for a while, and then death substitutes for (absent) life.

We might lament death as the absence of life (as we might lament writing as the absence of speech, or masturbation as the absence of sex, or absence as the absence of presence). But death is useful insofar as it allows us to conceive of life as a thing with certain qualities; sans death, life simply is, but, in light of death, life is z, y, z, etc. As Derrida puts it, when presence becomes absence, the quality and worth of the absent presence becomes apparent. We often say that people lead good or bad lives, but we can only make such judgments — we can only conceive of such a thing as “a life” — with death in mind. This, I imagine, has much to do with the explorations of mortality conducted by such things as Casshern Sins and Bokurano.

So far the territory we’ve crossed hasn’t gotten too thorny. In fact, this all seems like an extension of Saussure — i.e. things “mean” relative to one another. But here’s the strange part: as absence fulfills its role as absence, it becomes another presence. Simply put, death describes the state of a thing as does life. The problem with death specifically is that we can’t exactly substitute something for it — there is no “post-death” at the end of death — and so it’s hard to say anything about death as such other than that it simply is.

Fortunately the hypothetical world of fiction gives us such things as undeath; we might say of a zombie that it had a foreshortened or interrupted death, a death that wasn’t peaceful. And there’s always religious afterlife, I guess. But I digress, and I really shouldn’t in a post that will be long enough anyway. What we end up with is a great chain of supplementation:

This convenient model can be applied to all kinds of things, and it gets particularly interesting when there’s more than one person doing the conceptualizing. Consider translation:

And, as implied however many hundred words ago, this process bears upon Saussure’s basic signified/signifier model, which is, in a sense, a variation on the presence/absence binary. The thing signified is our idea of a “presence” in the world, and we discuss these presences-as-conceived via signifiers, symbols that imply the “absence” of the signified in collective discursive space. Working with signifiers may be about all we can do, but that’s not the whole of it; we also have to consider that the very existence of the signifier gives us a sense of the “form” of the signified — hence the poststructuralist interest in the signifier.

Of course, one of Derrida’s strangest ideas is about the space between the signifier and the signified. Derrida, in his “Différance,” described what one could describe as what Saussure didn’t bother with: how signs work. That is, the actual mechanism of them.

Essentially, différance is that line in the signifier/signified diagram. Here’s the deal: the word différance combines the words “differ” and “defer.” All words both differ and defer, and in doing so they create meaning.

A word differs because, as we saw earlier, a dog is a dog because it’s not a cat. We have lots and lots of different words for things because that’s part of how language works — each signifier is different from every other signifier. That’s the simple part.

A word defers as it sends you both away and back. When you hear the word “dog” you think of a dog, but a dog is not actually summoned into the room with you. You are thrown back in your memory and call up an image of a dog — perhaps a particular dog, perhaps an amalgamation of many dogs — that is in the past, because it is a memory. At the same time, save in rare occasions, the dog(s) you’re thinking of were not in the room you’re in when you hear the word “dog,” so you’re also deferred out to somewhere else.

Now. It is a joke among academics that only two people ever understood deconstruction (the literary lens that grew out of Derridian post-structuralism): Derrida and Cixous (his wife). This is a common joke because Deconstruction is pretty wild, and we’re never sure if we’re doing it the way it was originally meant to be done. But really it doesn’t matter. So.

You may be able to see already how différance is useful when reading a text. A sign in a text, most often a metaphor, symbol, or such-like, works the same way a Derridian sign does. It both differs and defers. I think first of the famous traffic lights and road signs in anime — my favorite examples are from Kare Kano. They are literally things: a traffic light flashing yellow. It is also a representation of a thing, a signifier, as the thing is actually a real traffic light, the thing we’re seeing actually being a series of drawings of a light, and not the light itself. So we’re being sent out and back to traffic lights in our past, and what that meant to us (to slow down). Slowing down, or the need to, is also the import of the sign on the symbolic level, and so we’re being deferred through our deferral into another signified: danger/caution. But the show uses that series of deferments instead of another. We’re constantly sliding back out of the show into our own lives. Coupled with various other elements in the show, such as the shifting art style, the music, the painstakingly realized (and only mildly cliché-ridden) school setting, we can see the show as something that constantly pushes us farther away, with its method, even as it draws us closer with the story and the characters. We’re positioned always as viewers, never as fellows of the characters. There is, in fact, one possible implication in the way the show slides us, defers us, with the sorts of signs and signifiers it chooses: the show could be implying that we are beyond the problems and the timeframe that the characters live in. We can think of other examples of shows that behave as though they’re for one audience and really deal with another (Nanoha springs to mind). Kare Kano acts as though high schoolers are the entire world it deals with, but the signs are both more complex than usual (the art style) and defer us to places that are out of character for high schoolers (traffic lights only mean something that powerful to us when we’re driving, and the typical high schooler hasn’t driven much).

ALL signs, according to Derrida, function with différance within them — fortunately for Roland Barthes, who, for a while, made a living analyzing the signs of day-to-day French life. Barthes did literature, too — he wrote “The Death of the Author,” for one thing — but his Mythologies is founded largely upon such miscellanea as advertising campaigns and strippers. This may be notable in itself, as it demonstrates that (post)structural practices have applicability beyond strictly-defined art; we might analyze as symbols or signs such things as vendor booths at conventions, anime-related clothing, and yes, even anime blogs.

But this notion isn’t particularly poststructural. Barthes is, in fact, something of a transitional figure; he became more poststructural with every essay (which, really, may just mean that his position became more nuanced — if we reduce it to its essence, poststructuralism is more like an extension of structuralism than a radical reaction). The post- begins to come into play when Barthes points out the contradictions inherent to things.

You may have surmised at this point that, thanks in large part to Derrida, poststructuralism concerns itself with contradiction and paradox in ways that structuralism did not. We see this in such concepts as différance, which, again, relies upon levels of separation, but we might also call contradiction the motive of the poststructuralist — in short, if the meaning-values of things come from the ways that binaries function, we may as well reveal and scrutinize relevant binaries.

Barthes, for example, demonstrated that the striptease is a fundamentally chaste act, reinforcing the distance between erotic dancer and viewer. And this isn’t in spite of the particular features of the act — it’s a direct result of them. Everything from the layout of the typical gentlemen’s club to the final article of clothing that the dancer does not remove suggests separation (or suggested as much to Barthes in mid-20th-century France). Such elements as partial nudity and the sexualization of the dancer may imply intimacy, but there’s more to consider beyond what seems most obvious.

We might say that striptease demonstrates a structural contradiction, that it is, perhaps, the binary of intimacy/separation in action. And, if we’re Derridean about it, these contradictions are fundamental to everything — they are, as we’ve seen, the reason things are able to mean, so to speak.

But what good does that do us? The life of the fan is, of course, as rife with contradiction as any other sort of life; these contradictions seem to turn up in practically any sustained examination of the fandom, Azuma’s Otaku being a prime example. Azuma (who, by the way, made a name for himself as a Derrida scholar) deals with how fiction can feel more real than reality; he explains how pornographic visual novels really aren’t about sexual gratification; he investigates different parallel ways of engaging with different parts of texts; he even brings up the topic of otaku sexuality, pointing out the gulf between crazy 2D fetishes and relative 3D conservatism. And yet another contradiction emerges in Otaku that the book doesn’t deal with explicitly: the very idea of the postmodern database seems strange when postmodernism is evidently all about doing away with such all-encompassing structures. We could do this all day, really, but the point is that fandom, as anything, is made of binaries — reality/fiction being perhaps the biggest and most visible — and, in revealing and examining these binaries, we stand to learn something about ourselves.

Well then! With poststructuralism out of the way, we’ve handily dealt with the vagaries of mid-to-late-20th-century literary and cultural theory. Haven’t we?

No. No we haven’t. You know we haven’t. For, alas! there’s another feared and reviled body of critical work to consider, one that may prove even more difficult to wrangle than poststructuralism, insofar as it’s considerably vaguer.

I’m speaking, of course, of postmodernism.

…つづく!

I have to admit, this one’s a little ridiculous, even for us. Ghostlightning, lelangir, Cuchlann, and I all somehow ended up in a chat a scant few hours ago. Initially, the topic was Kannagi, but, when matters of disparate theory arose, things got a little crazy. The title is apt; in fact, what you’ll see after the break is no less than 11,001 words of our discourse and debate. Is it worth reading? Absolutely.

It’s a good thing the concept of tl;dr doesn’t exist on Super Fanicom.

lelangir: you there?

Ghostlightning: yeah

lelangir: cool, I need help thinking through this post

Ghostlightning: how goes?
okay

lelangir: so from what I’ve seen, Kannagi’s reception is that the plot sucks
but I’m arguing that it doesn
and so I was thinking

Ghostlightning: glad to help because i have a long term project that i need your assistance in a big way
okay

lelangir: what is the relationship between plot and genre?
lemme email you what i have so far

Ghostlightning: fire

lelangir: ok

Ghostlightning: my quick impression: the plot is generic, but it doesn’t make it bad

lelangir: hmmm

Ghostlightning: how many unique plots are there anyway?

lelangir: well kannagi is interesting

Ghostlightning: the disconnect that people feel
i think

lelangir: you could say its plot in and of itself is a double entendre
are we thinking of it as social commentary?
incidental?
or…typical harem crap?

Ghostlightning: is because teh execution in the chemistry is SO GOOD

lelangir: the latter, then there is no plot
the former, the plot is VERY intricate

Ghostlightning: but at the expense of a rushed conclusion, that seems forced

lelangir: and so the harm mush is predicated on its “incidental social commentary”

Ghostlightning: making people say: bad plot

lelangir: hehe but wiat
its not rushed

Ghostlightning: about what you’re saying:

lelangir: because the “lack of plot” was the plot itself

Ghostlightning: but there is a plot:
boy meets girl
girl has big reveal: she’s a goddess
conflict: IS SHE REALLY?

lelangir: I think the fanservice superficial plot is more vehicular to the metaphorical content

Ghostlightning: consequence of conflict: complication of ordinary high school life

lelangir: in the anime, what we see first and foremost is Nagi years ago

Ghostlightning: the metaphorical content does not equal plot

lelangir: clad in traditional clothing as goddess
hmm

Ghostlightning: plot can be ‘bad’ but metaphorical content can be awesome
kannagi’s metaphorical content is awesome imo
plot is ordinary
not a value judgment

lelangir: but the metaphorical content is so well lined up that I dont think it cant be anything but plot

Ghostlightning: hmmm

lelangir: the aspects of Kannagi that are mainstream “broadcasted” are whats incidental

Ghostlightning: let’s distinguish the metaphorical content

lelangir: IMO the point of Kannagi was Nagi’s idolatry
and no one picks this up

Ghostlightning: i would approach it as a “reading”

lelangir: that’s because they’re too caught up in what you define as “plot”
but I think here it’s switched

Ghostlightning: and not as a statement against those who dismiss kannagi
an xist reading of kannagi

lelangir: that’s good, since we know it has to make money

Ghostlightning: the rest of the sphere are STUCK in their formalist reading methodology

lelangir: and it has
industry, etc.

Ghostlightning: plot, character, etc
forms
structure

lelangir: well
its metaphors and “plot” are coextensive

Ghostlightning: so they can argue good plot, bad plot
and you can read it from a framework
of religion/idolatry

lelangir: but while its “plot” seems stupid and “inert” (as in not going anywhere, slice of life), this is precisely what propels its metaphorical content, nagi’s search for idolatry

Ghostlightning: if it were me, i would downplay plot ‘valuation’

lelangir: i dont get it

Ghostlightning: the commentary will appropriate your reading
and then people will use your arguments
to say that kannagi has a good plot lol

lelangir: I still think its metaphorical content is sufficient enough to upset the canon of plot

Ghostlightning: okay
please explain
‘canon of plot’

lelangir: well that “plot” is superficial
like you said, boy meets girl, etc.

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: vs. idolatry, “metaphores”
which constitutes “plot”?
is plot the same as “watching”?

Ghostlightning: okay, you in your reading will re-valuate formal plot elements, vs metaphorical content

lelangir: actually yeah…
plot is watching
hmm
well we can then say that kannagi also has a secondary, subtle plot

Ghostlightning: plot, strictly speaking is a formal element

lelangir: to supplement its “fanservice”

Ghostlightning: the sequencing of the narrative, the conflict and resolution

lelangir: (double entendre ,pun intended)

Ghostlightning: haha

lelangir: yes
so in your definition, my view also works

Ghostlightning: yes
only that i’m more comfortable that the content is distinguished from plot/structure
the plot merely ‘frames’ the content
‘how things happen’
the content is… what the events ‘mean’

lelangir: in very…uh..”non post-modern” situations?

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: i guess cowboybebop, faulkner, etc. complicate that

Ghostlightning: non-postmodern
formalism sucks, imo – only that it is very useful in the study of craft

lelangir: hmm so now I enjoy thinking of Kannagi simply as having two coextensive plots
one just more metaphorical than the other

Ghostlightning: that can work too!
i like it

lelangir: ooooo, the superficiality serves as a framework for its metaphor

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: ok that’s good
solved that
sheesh, it’s sooooo much easier talking it through with someone

Ghostlightning: yes
i have mechafetish irl for this, or rather, he has me

lelangir: my uni actually has a class on anime next semester lol

Ghostlightning: whoa

lelangir: this is going to sound arrogant, but I think the blogosphere would still be wayyy more insightful

Ghostlightning: what’s the content? not history i hope
or genre surveying

lelangir: oh lol

Ghostlightning: yes, but of course it would

lelangir: i was about to say that the class is probably more focused on history

Ghostlightning: yes, an introduction to the medium
you will be smarter than everyone
it will be hell
i remember my good friend, when he took an elective on SF

lelangir: and it’d be boring ’cause it wouldn’t view currently airing shows
so its not as “cultural” or memetic w/e
copyright issues, etc.

Ghostlightning: oh lol
he said to the class: “you cretins, i am erudite! i read more science fiction books than all of you have read books!”

lelangir: uh huh

Ghostlightning: so i anticipate that you will be in a similar spot

lelangir: lol i’m not well-read….or at least as not as I’d like to be
I wish I were more in tune with japanese history

Ghostlightning: in relation to anime

lelangir: so my aniblogging had much more substance
or foundation, etc.

Ghostlightning: you’d know more than anyone in the class
but it still may be worth taking

lelangir: ’cause the general populace is more attuned to viewing anime microscopically

Ghostlightning: because if the teacher is good, it will be very good

lelangir: which is why there’s all this talk about “viewing things deeply”

Ghostlightning: and you’ll be able to influence her

lelangir: whereas I enjoy looking at anime from a bird’s eye view

Ghostlightning: and contribute to education in some way

lelangir: intertextually, vis-a-vis one another and cultures, positions of viewing
I think the prof. had a website
he looked cool
but not a PhD
so i dunno

Ghostlightning: yes, that’s why i’m not so inclined to do so
because you’re around lol
you do it better than me

lelangir: nobody likes reading those posts though lol

Ghostlightning: i can play off your posts, etc. without having to lay foundations

lelangir: oh and the lucky star english dub is soooo interesting
they retain the japanese honorifics

Ghostlightning: o rly? tell me

lelangir: and even phonetics differ

Ghostlightning: ah i think i read a tweet or note of yours

lelangir: i’ve noticed that in recent dubs, they keep the flapped R
and in LS, some keep the flapped R while others anglicize it
crazy

Ghostlightning: whoa

lelangir: and there’s the whole thing about trying to sound like the original VA

Ghostlightning: i wonder how they discussed this

lelangir: yeah
it’s related to how its steeped in otaku culture

Ghostlightning: well, it may be just trying to appeal to the fan of subs

lelangir: I’m sure
yeah
I’d have to read into suzumiya haruhi sales in USA
as LS is definitely its successor (or giant advertisement)

Ghostlightning: your post reads good, so far

lelangir: that was the 2nd thing i needed help on
the relationship between style/genre and plot/progression

Ghostlightning: okay, frame your need

lelangir: it
it’s hard…hmmmm
I’m conceptualizing this as….
a hierarchy between the two, genre and plot
which “contains” the other
which has more prevalence

Ghostlightning: ohhhh
hohoho

lelangir: =p you have answer!

Ghostlightning: people i think choose subjects by genre first

lelangir: definitely

Ghostlightning: plot is secondary

lelangir: in terms of the viewer

Ghostlightning: but plot can ‘ruin’ the experience or ‘elevate’t
it
i think

lelangir: yeah
one sec…diagram time

Ghostlightning: characters and settings can elevate the subject
but plot is more destructive (a badly plotted story)
a good plot, can elevate unlikable characters (but not uninteresting)
i need examples
08th MS Team
boy meets girl
capulets and montagues
war
(subplots are: coming of age, shaking off one’s past – shinigami, hopes in wartime)
the plot(s) is/are ordinary

lelangir: http://i44.tinypic.com/219au7n.jpg
yeah, subplots

Ghostlightning: the setting is awesome, a great romantic sweep

lelangir: but wait that’s just what we said
metaphorical content, subplot, secondary plot, etc.
style
comedy, romance, drama, suspense

Ghostlightning: is metaphorical content in kannagi a subplot?

lelangir: yeah
or so I think

Ghostlightning: or is it a “sub” in terms of depth, but not necessarily subordinate in value
it is ‘beneath the surface’

lelangir: former
only in depth
all kinds of plot being equal

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: epistomologically equal i suppose
or however we phrase it

Ghostlightning: subplots in kannagi: jin (not)
finding himself in art
tsugumi’s trust in jin (relationship)

lelangir: equal in form but not in effect
those are more rhetorical
for fanservice

Ghostlightning: zange’s competition with nagi

lelangir: at least the cliche childhood friend thing
hmm
so this suggests subplots are hierarchical

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: zange/nagi is really just a contribution to nagi’s idolatry
christianity vs. shintoism

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: ok, so that’s just a complex form of story-telling
I still don’t get it….its the 2nd paragraph of the article

Ghostlightning: rather, it’s just the use of forms

lelangir: i was trying to theorize a 2nd form of plot vis-a-vis genre

Ghostlightning: this one: Kannagi isn’t so easily reducible to polarized styles precisely because of its plot. On the one hand, we could say that the plot functions as an adhesive that produces sensibility within the anime, but this perspective pigeonholes us back in the thought that genre is linearly coextensive with plot, which is to say that distinct sections of the progression of the story will be accompanied by correlating genres – comedy, drama, slice of life, and so forth. When we view Kannagi this way, we already set an expectation that
?

lelangir: yeah
that genre is linearly coextensive with plot
or….
and that’s where i went blak
blank

Ghostlightning: explain ‘coextensive’
lelangir: in tandem
1:1

Ghostlightning: i see

lelangir: http://i44.tinypic.com/219au7n.jpg

Ghostlightning: it isn’t i think

lelangir: me neither
so what’s the second form?

Ghostlightning: but it can be, in a contingent way

lelangir: and that’s where I thought the heirarchy of plot/genre was upset

Ghostlightning: particular to specific works

lelangir: ok
yeah

Ghostlightning: yeah

lelangir: so which form does kannagi utilize
I’m just having a hard time articulating this

Ghostlightning: i can imagine

lelangir: the first case is how plot is a glue that connects genre
the second is how everything is already cohesive in the first place
but it’s not visible
it takes something more to realize it

Ghostlightning: connects genre to what?

lelangir: to each other
this is why people are like “emo jin is stupid”
its not because it’s directly related to plot
emo jin isn’t irrelevant at all
poorly directed perhaps
but I construed viewer displease as “i dont get how this has to do with anything”

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: how comedy is disparate to drama
but….are they really disparate at all?

Ghostlightning: they go together well when done expertly
the comedy in kannagi is done expertly imo

lelangir: ok ooooo
so i just had it….

Ghostlightning: the drama – the jury’s still out

lelangir: when things aren’t viewed as disparate, it becomes hierarchical, one becomes the vehicle for the other

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: and plot isn’t the railway anymore
plot isn’t the cohesive force…
it’s like a product now
or something

Ghostlightning: wait

lelangir: yeah that’s not right…

Ghostlightning: plot, formerly is the railway to deliver the laughs, the tears etc?
i can agree with that
but that’s not necessarily subverted
by the metaphorical content
which is ‘srs bsns’
neither necessarily comedic or tragic
dramatic

lelangir: http://i41.tinypic.com/2hzibmu.jpg

Ghostlightning: i don’t get the second example (the line below)

lelangir: that doesnt make sense
what i posted
neither do i
the first line does

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: but i feel like there is a counter example

Ghostlightning: plot is the vehicle yes

lelangir: but i need a way to view genres not as spatially distant
and the only way is to make it hierarchical
not on the same plane
then, something,the glue, doesn’t “connect”

Ghostlightning: the points along the plotline can be comedic or dramatic in themselves, but there will be cases where the characters or other elements produce the emotional effects

lelangir: it just “produces”

Ghostlightning: when points, are ‘twists’
like code geass
twists are funny, ludicrous, etc
whereas kannagi’s reveal

lelangir: hmm

Ghostlightning: that she’s not sure of her divinity
is dramatic only because her character made so much of it
not that dramatic in itself
or, let’s take a big plot twist example:
“LUKE, I AM YOUR FATHER”
is that in itself dramatic?
or is it made so by the reaction:
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!”
dramatic = sad
opposite of comedy
never mind the narm/unitntentional comedy of the scene

lelangir: ok
though…im still having a hard time seeing how that contributes to the relationship between genre/plot
or rather
a specific type of rel.

Ghostlightning: use sets
all genres have plots

lelangir: what I parced from vader example was that we cannot separate the event and the reception
the reception “enacts” the event
or at least amplifies it
I think even if Vader said “I am HIS father” directly to the audience in a soliloquy
the audience would be ‘OMFGWTFBBQHAX’

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: would still be*

Ghostlightning: i agree
it’s still dramatic

lelangir: hmm lol lemme ask
do you get what i’m trying to get at?
the two specific kinds of relationships between genre/plot

Ghostlightning: genre and plot relationship

lelangir: in the first, plot is all-encompassing
it contains genre

Ghostlightning: ok

lelangir: it acts as an adhesive
so the 2nd must upset the 1st
the 2nd is a counter theory

Ghostlightning: okay

lelangir: but i cannot articulate in such a way that it makes sense

Ghostlightning: but to say that, would mean…
that genre can make plot irrelevant?
i sense the sense in it… but

lelangir: yes….when there is no plot
hidamari sketch
lucky star

Ghostlightning: ahhh
yes

lelangir: minami ke (1st season)

Ghostlightning: but kannagi has a plot, yes?

lelangir: mmhm…subplots too, as we established

Ghostlightning: two, arguably right?

lelangir: yup

Ghostlightning: so it’s difficult to use it an example to prove the counter theory

lelangir: …how so?

Ghostlightning: sort of like, “it works great with lucky star, it works too with kanagi if you read deep enough”
is this what you’re saying now?

lelangir: the fact that “non-plots” exist shouldn’t refute this binary
because it’s not even in the same paradigm
“non-plot” isn’t in the “plot” paradigm
our “plot” paradigm can be constituted of several theories
“non-plots” should be irrelevant here I think

Ghostlightning: ok, list

lelangir: wait…”it works great with lucky star, it works too with kanagi if you read deep enough”
no…hmm…
no, like i said, it cant “work” because that’s a theoretical paradigm shift
apples and oranges

Ghostlightning: or, the enjoyment of kannagi is not shackled by its plot
limited by
its plot
and subplots

lelangir: right
yes
ah yes
shiet
oh god
then what is the rel. between COMEDY and plot????
(needs….to….read….aristotle….nao)

Ghostlightning: hmmm

lelangir: oh shiiiiet
so….is comedy like microplot?

Ghostlightning: again, the events in the plot can be comedic (situational comedy)

lelangir: like a shitload of 4-komas inserted together?

Ghostlightning: or jokes

lelangir: nearly in a nonsequiter fashion?
wait

Ghostlightning: yeah

lelangir: so
have you seen okawari?

Ghostlightning: micro-plots
sorry no

lelangir: hm ok
but yeah you get it
miniami-ke is microplot
a bunch of unrelated microplots

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: but okawari is macroplot
one plot per episode
thats why everone hates it
vis-a-vis first season

Ghostlightning: event a, b, punchline event

lelangir: yeah
x6 per ep.
[a, b, punchline][a, b, punchline][a, b, punchline][a, b, punchline]
like a train

Ghostlightning: yeah

lelangir: tangent….hmm
so

Ghostlightning: in ls, through the series of microplots, the value is… getting an intimacy with the characters

lelangir: hm
i dont see how micro/macro affects that

Ghostlightning: they are not ‘developed’ rather, they are revealed

lelangir: …
i dont think there’s any char. dev LS
development nor revealment

Ghostlightning: yes, exactly

lelangir: ok

Ghostlightning: reveal is simply this: no sruprises
how exactly tsundere is kagamin

lelangir: what about I am yuor father?
that’s surprise + revealment

Ghostlightning: how MUCH of an otaku is konata

lelangir: yeah precisely
it’s just amplification

Ghostlightning: yes, as opposed to starwars
the linear plot, twists in a new direction
instead of MUST DESTROY VADER, it becomes MUST SAVE VADER, there is good in him

lelangir: ah

Ghostlightning: from the viewer’s standpoint, there is value in both
one can say ls is entirely exposition

lelangir: yeah

Ghostlightning: but somehow, there is value in that

lelangir: “value”

Ghostlightning: because it is entertaining, funny

lelangir: so….going back again lol

Ghostlightning: value = the utility the viewer experiences from the subject

lelangir: mmh
mmhm
plot is the vehicle for genre

Ghostlightning: so there is value in the experience of watching kannagi, if one ignores the plot

lelangir: plot doesnt discriminate between genre
slice of life is an exception

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: but…i’m concerning people that took plot into account and were disappointed
is there a way to say that their disappointment wasn’t “properly directed”?

Ghostlightning: they were looking for plot, or were forced to look at the plot
nagi pun!

lelangir: that kannagi disrupts the notion that plot is a conduit for genre
lol

Ghostlightning: ‘properly directed’

lelangir: lol…that they were wrong
guy a: “dude this plot sucks”
guy b: “no, you’re just looking at it the wrong way”
guy c: “this different perspective is _____”

Ghostlightning: the game here is that it is foolish to immediately dismiss kannagi

lelangir: right

Ghostlightning: due to what you failed to see

lelangir: but we said that already
that there are subplots
ok
bu..ksalfkjasf
hmmmm
right
so this is where I said that its subplot disrupts “plot” itself
subplot disrupts plot as a conduit for genre
subplot disrupts genre
???

Ghostlightning: no
that’s confusing

lelangir: genre is already overgeneralized
….nice pun?

Ghostlightning: you can simply say, that underneath all this, is an essay on religion (idols, commodification)
and the fact that it was entertaining to watch, makes it awesome
because essays on religion aren’t supposed to be entertaining

lelangir: …but….it’s incidental
perhaps
no….
there’s too much evidence to say it’s incidental..they knew what they were doing
ok

Ghostlightning: yes
it’s not incidental

lelangir: ok, so, all metaphor aside, kannagi is awesome
because it’s funny and has naked DFC’s

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: but
its plot sucks
the religion metaphors weren’t properly connected
- or is what we’ve read
but
they were connected
it just wasn’t spoonfed

Ghostlightning: yes, not spoonfed

lelangir: the karoake episode was in fact subplot
it was, in and of itself
it was nagi getting faith
it had to be
it was incidentally or otherwise
because that’s what the metaphor sets up

Ghostlightning: i don’t know what to make of that ep tbqh

lelangir: the metaphor sets it up so everything contributes to the subplot
incidentally or otherwise

Ghostlightning: i know i was entertained
ahhhhhh
yes
wait

lelangir: so it’s really a convenience

Ghostlightning: nagi… wasn’t trying!
zange was forcing it

lelangir: oh shiet bring her into this now lol
hmmmm
from what i remember

Ghostlightning: so nagi, ‘not trying’ by virtue of song choice

lelangir: it was just a double cat fight for jin
ok so that ep was slice of life by nature

Ghostlightning: maybe not not trying, just doing it wrong
yes

but in the context of the idol/god metaphor

lelangir: but….doesn’t everything constitute idolatry?

Ghostlightning: nagi was doing it wrong

lelangir: making friends
she was even saying how she had to look over her friends
because she’s the goddess of the land

Ghostlightning: doing it wrong

lelangir: formed from the land

Ghostlightning: doing it wrong

lelangir: doing what wrong?

Ghostlightning: the whole time

lelangir: idolatry?

Ghostlightning: taking care of the land

lelangir: ….

Ghostlightning: dealing with the impurities
acting like a goddess

lelangir: ….and that’s the part that confused me in general

Ghostlightning: making friends
this is new to me too

lelangir: what’s interesting
is the hospitality metaphor

Ghostlightning: she had an idea of what she’s supposed to do

lelangir: jin saying “stay here!”
“is my house not good enough?”

Ghostlightning: but she’s doing everything wrong

lelangir: ok
she needed the freaking wand as an excorcism tool
since she lacked power
and that somehow stems from her container
the tree
as opposed to zange

Ghostlightning: figure out the rules, steps required for her to do her mission

lelangir: who is a parasite
but….

Ghostlightning: what did she do right?

lelangir: both have no identity
no memory
remember
the shrine is nameless
nameless god
which makes some weird pun

Ghostlightning: right

lelangir: kannagi, nagi
nagi means “calm”

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: but yeah that’s irrelevant

Ghostlightning: the more i think about it, the direction of your article needs to change

lelangir: or just expand

Ghostlightning: you can do it this way:
enjoying kannagi: ur doin it wrng

lelangir: lol

Ghostlightning: then play off on how nagi is getting everything wrong
and THAT is the plot

lelangir: hm….

Ghostlightning: all of you have been fooled

lelangir: eh
i was going for a general disruption of “plot”
“all ur plot belong to me”

Ghostlightning: or THAT is the point

lelangir: “cuz DIS is reel plot”

Ghostlightning: substitute point for plot

lelangir: ?

Ghostlightning: make plot irrelevant

lelangir: hmmmm

Ghostlightning: while everyone is looking at jin’s emo, it’s nagi’s story after all
her ridiculous failure

lelangir: but what’s the relationship!!!!!????

Ghostlightning: plot and genre?

lelangir: which is the product of the other!!!
yesssss

Ghostlightning: neither!

lelangir: that’s precisely what i was saying
people view them as intrinsically separate
connnected by plot

Ghostlightning: not a cause and effect thing necessarily

lelangir: ok
and thus, the 2nd counter theory
lol
doo doood dooooo listen to my song… guruguru mawaru….

Ghostlightning: wait, whose song is that?

lelangir: from school rumble
means “going in circles” lol
or so I’ve read

Ghostlightning: ah yes
school rumble had plots
a bunch of romance arcs
and harima’s manga career

lelangir: yup

Ghostlightning: ok, are you clear re your article now?
or did i just mess it up for you?

lelangir: I still haven’t come to the conclusion i was searching for
a different relation between plot/genre
wait

Ghostlightning: interdependent

lelangir: i think im obfuscating it for you
microgenre
genre within the same series
shifts from comedy to romance to drama

Ghostlightning: rendering genre meaningless

lelangir: whoa….maybe that’s it

Ghostlightning: or calling for lame portmanteaus like dramedy

lelangir: one sec….

Ghostlightning: brb, waifu calls

lelangir: ok
i’ll keep talkin
so it’s like, microgenres are hierarchical
in kannagi, drama takes a backseat to comedy
they cant be viewed horizontally

Pontifus has joined

Ghostlightning: ok

lelangir: ok so the question was
what is the relationship between genre and plot
wait, pontifus, have yuo seen kannagi?

Pontifus: yeah

Ghostlightning: you bastards are keeping me from writing my post (i don’t entirely mind)

lelangir: lol
you’re telling me…
http://i44.tinypic.com/219au7n.jpg

Ghostlightning: this is not going to end well

lelangir: that’s Kannagi, essentially

Pontifus: and, regarding genre and plot, cuchlann would be the one to ask…i don’t really like genre, and i’m trying to make an argument for genre being a superfluous construct (though i haven’t really figured it out yet)

lelangir: yes

Ghostlightning: bwahahahahaha

lelangir: but for all intensive purposes
genre not as discursive
as “style”
“approach”

Ghostlightning: we got to that conclusion too

lelangir: fuck where is that guy

Ghostlightning: after so much wrestling

lelangir: need total superfani jerk circle

Pontifus: what are we calling genre here? comedy?

lelangir: comedy, drama
basically
the distinct elements in kannagi

Pontifus: alright

lelangir: wait up one sec

Pontifus: lol, should i bust out some aristotle?

Ghostlightning: please
save lelangir the trouble

lelangir: lol
go ahead if you want
http://lelangir.dasaku.net/

Pontifus: norton anthology of theory and criticism, GO!

lelangir: the kannagi collection
look at kabitzin’s remarks
he’s like “this sucks, i dont get it, it doesnt make sense”
so why dont the distinct elements make sense?
grrrrr, uguu~

Pontifus: did either of you not like nagi very much?
or am i the only one in the universe?

Ghostlightning: read from a framework of failure, it all makes sense!

lelangir: i liked her
lol
oh jesus…

Ghostlightning: i like her so much more now

lelangir: HELP ME ANSWER MY QUESTION
LISTEN TO MY SONG

Ghostlightning: NAGI, THE ROMANCE OF FAIL

lelangir: fucking UGUU

Pontifus: i didn’t DISlike her, but she didn’t make me fangasm, either
alright, back on topic!

lelangir: right
so
plot is a conduit for intraparadigmatic genre
which is to say
when an anime deploys several genres within the same series
kannagi ie
the plot connects comedy and drama
but
what is the counter theory
theory1: plot is vehicular
theory2: genre isnt really disparate at all….so how does plot function?
i dont know….

Pontifus: northrop frye is suddenly relevant…i need to find something, give me a minute
http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/dherring/ap/consider/frye/indexfryeov.htm
genres sort of bleed into each other
so you’ve got tragic comedy, romantic comedy, and ironic comedy

Ghostlightning: yeah, and code geass is the best example

Pontifus: but not really comedy “by itself”

Ghostlightning: if one includes anime-specific genre
such as mecha, harem
etc

lelangir: so there’s a distinction here
between style and genre
style is romance
genre is mecha
mecha romance
slice of life romance
mecha comedy
‘slife comedy

Pontifus: well, tragedy and comedy are kind of opposed as per frye, i guess he’d call tragicomedy ironic comedy

Ghostlightning: style… hmmm

lelangir: sooo frye says they’re in the same paradigm
opposed but comparable

Pontifus: right

lelangir: that’s good

Ghostlightning: oooh that frye model got me wet

Pontifus: damn, we really need cuchlann

lelangir: lol

Pontifus: he knows so much more about frye than i do, lol

lelangir: he’s got like over 9000 degrees lol

Pontifus: right
unlimited degree works

lelangir: haha
man
those are two REALLY complementing memes

Pontifus: oh shit, that mythoi circle i linked is kind of wrong

Pontifus: it says comedy, romance, tragedy, irony/satire…but i think the right order is romance, comedy, tragedy, and irony/satire
so comedy and tragedy do overlap

lelangir: how so?
wait yeah

Pontifus: mythos of summer/mythos of autumn

lelangir: they can….
like….monty python or something
well….”tragedy”
i’m not so familiar with grecian tragedy

Ghostlightning: shakespeare even

lelangir: oh shit

Ghostlightning: unless you dismiss comedic elements from let’s say romeo and juliet
as mere ‘relief’

lelangir: but that speaks directly tot he difference between style/genre
“tragedy” can be either totalizing or not

Ghostlightning: combo breakers for teh drama

lelangir: tragedy as in “everyone is sad”
or tragedy as in “everyone dies”
they’re not mutually exclusive

Pontifus: i think putting the mythoi on a circle might be too restrictive of them anyway
oversimplification

Ghostlightning: IN SHAKESPEARE: tragedy-everyone dies, comedy-everyone gets married

lelangir: ok
man….i’m done with this kannagi post lol
for another day….

Pontifus: in any case, when you said “plot connects comedy and drama,” i’d say they’re all connected anyway

lelangir: how so?
comedy and drama aren’t intrinsically connected
it’s a non-sequitor as it is
it needs something “logical” or “syntatical” to make it fit

Pontifus: well, “drama” is a hard term for me to deal with as a genre anyway
i think drama is just a device

Ghostlightning: UNIVERSAL SET: PLOT, inter-connecting sets: style, genre

lelangir: drama as in dorama
drama = emo

Ghostlightning: style:device right?

Pontifus: comedy has drama, tragedy has drama, everything has drama

lelangir: for all intensive purposes here
but in kannagi they’re very distinct
emo doesn’t equal comedy
they dont even self-satirize their emo

Ghostlightning: but to categorize a subject as specifically drama, one must ignore the intentional fallacey

Pontifus: you think so?

Ghostlightning: and go by how it’s marketed

lelangir: yeah
marketed as comedy
with harem undertones

Pontifus: i think that, maybe, if the drama (dorama or emo though it may be) serves comedy, ultimately, then it falls under comedy…it’s just not funny yet, but it promises humor
and if it isn’t ultimately funny, then it’s tragedy

lelangir: …hmm….

Pontifus: funny and/or generally happy

lelangir: i dont get it…
“generally”
but it isn’t monolithic

Ghostlightning: so people who dismiss kannagi, dismiss it within the framework of the market

lelangir: kannagi utilizes different approaches in tandem with the progression of its plot
“the market”

Ghostlightning: they are the consumers – the target market that kannagi “missed”

lelangir: which is different than the author (oh SHI- barthes)

Pontifus: now, i don’t know about the market

lelangir: wait ghostlightning hold on
“[t]his is my first original work. Whenever I thought it was a joke, it became too serious. And whenever I thought it was serious, it became a joke. That’s the kind of manga I’m aiming it to be.”
that upsets it

Ghostlightning: goodbye barthes

Pontifus: nooo, barthes, come back!

lelangir: lol
he is gooooone now
eri has spoken
BUTTTT
its different than the anime!
oh shi-

Ghostlightning: but the thing is, the author HAS LESS POWER

lelangir: vis-a-vis the viewer
yes
the market appropriates it
“the market”
which is just discursive

Ghostlightning: because the means of production is held by someone else

Pontifus: i can’t really agree that anything the author said is relevant here at all, lol
i don’t care what the creative process was, or even about the manga at all

Ghostlightning: the relevant thing here is what the marketers are intending

Pontifus: kannagi the anime is what it is

Ghostlightning: they invested in it
they distributed it

lelangir: ok Karl
Karl-chan

Ghostlightning: but the market has spoken: we dun liek it

Pontifus: they created an authorial consciousness, that the reader/viewer fills

lelangir: Marx-tan
yes

Ghostlightning: marx-tan yes

lelangir: [i'll stop lol]

Pontifus: really? kannagi wasn’t well recieved?

lelangir: yeah it was
dvd sales high
across the sphere too

Pontifus: yeah, i thought it was

Ghostlightning: oh so only teh bloggers are whining

lelangir: http://lelangir.dasaku.net/?p=928
no only a few
it’s not like index

Pontifus: ugh

lelangir: lol

Pontifus: don’t remind me
those six episodes were traumatic

lelangir: i was kinda sad i missed out a red haied loli tsundere with hot pants
but….i got tsugumi
red haired [at times tsundere] with seifafuku

Ghostlightning: i’m possessed by cuchlann and Ghostlightning: the market received it well, implying they are entertained and have been recommending it to firends, high entertainment value = high literary value

lelangir: er, seira….

Ghostlightning: so bloggers, STFU

lelangir: huh?

Pontifus: nonononononono
noooooooooooo

lelangir: since when does entertainment value = literary value

Pontifus: all things have the same value

lelangir: ?

Ghostlightning: cuchlann quotes this michael guy

lelangir: “value”
define…….

Pontifus: literary value

lelangir: idealistically
not politically

Ghostlightning: value = utility that a readery experiences from the subject

lelangir: in essence anime is not deep

Ghostlightning: reader/consumer

lelangir: [oh shi- calling omo]
because its controlled by the industry
completely different histories
the history of literature vs. the history of anime

Pontifus: fuck, i need cuchlann’s aid!

lelangir: totally different

Pontifus: i’m telling him to jump on google

Ghostlightning: pontifus, i get what you’re saying

lelangir: me too
but i’m not up for it
we’re in a very political situation
so disregarding it is like….fljalewrjfoi

Ghostlightning: but the context here is that the readers/bloggers value shit the way they do
heirarchies and all taht

lelangir: yes
the discourse
produced by the industry/market
the literary value paradigm is irrelevant

Ghostlightning: but i’m with you ponti

lelangir: [hence 'anime is not deep']

Pontifus: “the literary value paradigm is irrelevant”

Ghostlightning: nothing can be invalidated

Pontifus: AAAAAGH

lelangir: Pontifus, what “literary value” doesnt seem to take into consideration is discourse
in that discourse produces value

Ghostlightning: no need to scream, you can’t be invalidated LOOOOOL

Pontifus: right

lelangir: value is predicated upon discourse

Pontifus: but here’s the thing
no, wait, scratch that

lelangir: muahauahauahuah
you cannot beeat foucault

Pontifus: yes discourse produces value, but i think one could pretty much talk about anything…i think that latent value is basically value

lelangir: latent value?
oh shit
chuchlann is on!

Pontifus: a thing around which there is no discourse COULD have discourse, and that’s enough

Ghostlightning: hmmm, even latent value is put there by a “prime valuator”

Pontifus: i don’t think it’s “put” there, i think it’s just there

lelangir: no wait nonnonnonononono

Ghostlightning: hence, value is relative to valuer
RELATIVE

lelangir: things have no meaning until it is represented
representation is CONSTITUTIVE of meaning

Ghostlightning: YES

lelangir: there is no “thing” before it is represented
representation MAKES the thing

Ghostlightning: there is NO KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT LANGUAGE

lelangir: yes

Pontifus: yeah, i know
hang on, let me process

lelangir: just to let you know

Ghostlightning: tihs is funner tahn i thuotgh

lelangir: i’m like, in a constant state of jizzing right now
lmfao
“tihs is funner tahn i thuotgh”

Ghostlightning: owen’s post resonates within me

lelangir: the amount of typos makes that hilarious for some reason

Ghostlightning: but that typo is artifice

lelangir: llololowwwwwwww

Pontifus: alright, i’m ready

Ghostlightning: synthetic comedy

lelangir: oh my jizzzzzzzzzz
FUCK

Cuchlann has joined

Pontifus: narrative art doesn’t need discourse to have value, insofar as discourse is communication between art experiencers…in fact, discourse is only possible to a point
it only needs, in my estimation, one person to experience it

Cuchlann: Okay, so what’s happening here?

Pontifus: how to summarize, lol

lelangir: well

Ghostlightning: DISCOURSE can be between the subject and the viewer/reader

lelangir: we’re talking about kannagi
if you’d believe it
discourse is emepheral

Ghostlightning: DESHO?!

Pontifus: everyone, summarize your position!

Cuchlann: Well of course you are. And clearly, this is why the next podcast needs to happen soon.

lelangir: wait…
discourse is between the things
subjects are constituent of it
they create it
and anime is its objec
the discourse ON anime

Pontifus: right, and i think that isn’t necessary for art to have value

Ghostlightning: like right now, i’m having a righteous discussion with ep 06 of SDF macross. Global you are an idiot.

lelangir: you think eh?
but that’s your discourse

Ghostlightning: value is not necessary
value is contingent

lelangir: the discourse in which you are situated
take away your discourse, it takes away your meaning
then, what is value?
an empty signifier

Ghostlightning: value = is the utility of a being experiencing a subject
the utility being gained

lelangir: just because your “value” means to say that discourse is irrelevant…that in itself is irrelevant because it NEEDS discourse to in itself have meaning
er, i didnt mean to come off as offensive..

Pontifus: i’m not saying that ALL discourse is irrelevant, or that discourse is even irrelevant at all, but that the value of art isn’t predicated entirely upon discourse between people, and that i don’t necessarily think there are variant “levels” of value

Ghostlightning: there are levels of value!

lelangir: so art has an intrinstic value….

Pontifus: assuming that the relationship between reader and text is discourse, then, sure, discourse is required
no

lelangir: but wait

Ghostlightning: i value macross over other anime

lelangir: that’s the discourse split
political value vs. philosophical value

Ghostlightning: levels are subjective, but they exist

lelangir: both are right
but irreconciaibly different

Pontifus: art has no intrinsic value, which makes it infinitely valuable

Ghostlightning: OOOOH, PARADOX

Cuchlann: At which point am I meant to enter the conversation? O_o

lelangir: nao

Pontifus: whenever, lol

Ghostlightning: just jump in

lelangir: wait
so
okkkokkkokko

Pontifus: lelangir

lelangir: we cant explain philosophical value with political value…

Pontifus: you’re like a brick wall
i love it

lelangir: -_-

Cuchlann: I have two responses to this conversation: one is in the same spirit, and one is in my usual asshole, reductionist spirit.

Pontifus: seriously, test the fuck out of my views
i don’t get a chance to do this that often

lelangir: oh lol
i thought you meant i was STOOPID lollolololo

Pontifus: no, lol

lelangir: stop being a tsundere Cuchlann

Ghostlightning: uh, Cuchlann maybe we should leave

Ghostlightning: these two are gonna fuck

Cuchlann: Which one’s the uke?

Pontifus: me, i think

lelangir: seme…I R ATTACKAR?

Cuchlann: Now, remind me of which role uke is?

Ghostlightning: oh no, you have seme really written all over you

Pontifus: bottom
fuck why do i know that

Cuchlann: Written in what, I wonder?

lelangir: ore ga sasahara…omae ga OGIUE

Pontifus: haha

Ghostlightning: oh i got it wrong

Pontifus: I’LL SHOW YOU HOW AGGRESSIVE I CAN BE

Ghostlightning: uke is below right
desho?

Pontifus: yeah

lelangir: ok….so going back to value etc.

Ghostlightning: ok, your wish to be challenged is an act of spreading your legs

Cuchlann: Okay, here’s my reductionist answer: I cite Dark Side of the Moon.

lelangir: lmfao
and….

Cuchlann: And what? That’s the anwer. ; )
Okay, yes, I will explain.

lelangir: [dont look at me, im the only guitarist i know that's never heard it before]
[that and the fact that i dont like hendrix]

Pontifus: :O
it’s acceptible though, you’re a jazz guy

lelangir: DUN DUN DUN
still

Cuchlann: I wouldn’t compare Hendrix and Pink Floyd at all, actually.
But anyway.

Ghostlightning: me too

Cuchlann: No one listens to DSotM in a group. At any rate, not stereotypically.

lelangir: i dig radiohead now though
ok computer is beast

Cuchlann: You always hear it alone, when you’re like fifteen.

lelangir: at any rate, i’m listening on loop to the kimi ga nozomu eien OP
lol

Pontifus: lol

Cuchlann: For a whole lot of American teenagers, at any rate, it’s the most meaningful thing they’ve ever heard.
It “speaks to them.” Much as the voices do, I’m sure.

lelangir: lol
like stairway to heaven backwards?

Cuchlann: This is without contact with other fans of Pink Floyd.
Now, the OED tells me that “discourse” has a lot of different meanings.

lelangir: OED?
i think i read that in a book just now

Cuchlann: Oxford English Dictionary.

lelangir: ohh

Ghostlightning: one can discourse with the subject!

lelangir: discourse in the foucauldian sense

Cuchlann: Okay, hold on.

Pontifus: see, this is hard for me because i don’t know focault yet, lol

Cuchlann: That is one sense of the meaning of “discourse.”
Another is the conversation afterwards.

Ghostlightning: lelangir, distinguish focauldian discourse plz

lelangir: oh jezz ok
so
discourse is the bounds of thinkable thought
things outside discourse have no meaning
like anamolous categories
gay
mulatto
they dont fit into the binary

Cuchlann: We need to clarify our terms here, and “discourse,” in my opinion, isn’t useful in describing anything other than conversation.

lelangir: of straight and/or black/white
foucauldian discourse describes, in essence…”sociolinguistics”

Cuchlann: Of course, that assumes the discourse works in terms of a binary, which isn’t necessarily true.

lelangir: in a broad, instituationalized sense
not necessarily true yes
but works for those cases

Pontifus: i am now stepping into cuchlann, who is also mobile suit cuchlann-gundam, and setting him on autopilot

lelangir: ok here’s an example

Cuchlann: I propose that we should use a different word, and not “discourse,” as academically the word is typically used to mean the setting within which people discuss topics.

lelangir: the subject does not produe knowledge

Ghostlightning: binaries are just asses waiting to be raped by deconstruction lol

lelangir: “setting”…
i’ve been inculcated into discourse as like, the godliest device ever

Cuchlann: Or group. As we are busily quibbling over words, I will admit “setting” is not the best choice.

lelangir: ok
well
what is the poit of not using discourse as an analytic tool?

Cuchlann: Yes, I can tell. I think you’re in the place I was several years ago, when you discovered a good critical theory and decided it was the holy of holies. :)

lelangir: what were we talkinga bout again?

Pontifus: in my mind, what you’re calling discourse is just existential existence…it’s the only thing worth considering, imo, so there isn’t even any need to discuss anything “beyond” it
there is no beyond

Ghostlightning: LIEK ME AND DECONSTRUCTION LOL

Cuchlann: Discourse the act of using analytic tools, in my terminology.

lelangir: discourse is the act?

Cuchlann: I’m trying to make sure you know what I’m saying when I say it.
Yes.

Ghostlightning: i realize that i no longer contribute value to this discussion

lelangir: well discourse is also practice
me shooting a basket contributes to the discourse on basketball

Cuchlann: Any act, repeated, is practice.

Ghostlightning: but i will derive value from it by LURKING
LURK MODE ON

lelangir: system of agreements
language

Pontifus: right, but, correct me if i’m wrong, it seems like you’re saying that discourse is the entire range of possible actions, thoughts, etc.

Cuchlann: No, it doesn’t. You shooting a basket and learning a new way to consider the act, then telling others — that contributes to the discourse.

lelangir: discourse neednt be ‘active’
you’re actively participating in it
by subjugating yourself to it

Cuchlann: I’m trying to copy-paste what Pontifus just said, but it won’t let me.

lelangir: the only way to avoid discourse is to scoop your eyes out and slit your ears off
“right, but, correct me if i’m wrong, it seems like you’re saying that discourse is the entire range of possible actions, thoughts, etc.”
“possible”….yes, sort of

Cuchlann: Here’s the first point of my poly-pronged point: if everything is discourse, there’s no point in discussing it, as it’s everything. Thus, it’s nothing.

Pontifus: exactly
existentialism ftw

Cuchlann: It has nothing to contrast it in the chain of meaning.

lelangir: no

Cuchlann: Not even existentialism, just pragmatic defining of critical terms.

lelangir: discourse points out holes in itself

Pontifus: i just like that word

lelangir: discouse expands, contracts

Ghostlightning: existentialism 4tw

lelangir: reconstitutes
no yesssss

Pontifus: sure, but anything outside of it doesn’t exist, right?

Cuchlann: All right, let’s go on to prong number two…

lelangir: discourse theory takes into account silence
booya
it contains in itself its antithesis
without synthesizing

Cuchlann: Do we all agree that a piece of art has no meaning without a viewer?

Ghostlightning: LELANGIR: WHAT IS NOT DISCOURSE?

lelangir: silence
no meaning
i’m being sophist probably

Pontifus: but if silence is the opposite of discourse, and discourse is all that is, all i can concern myself with as a human being is all that is, and therefore silence doesn’t exist

Cuchlann: Silence is a perfectly acceptable answer, and thus part of discourse.

lelangir: i didnt say discourse was all that is
discourse is, paradoxicaly, everything and nothing
take race for instance
you MUST have race

Cuchlann: Which means it’s not very good for conversation.

lelangir: but is is NOTHING
it doesnt exist
O_o

Cuchlann: Actually, it’s not necessary to have race as a construction, it’s just habitual at this point in human history.

lelangir: nationalism too

Ghostlightning: silence in the context of a conversation is not NOT DISCOURSE

Pontifus: race in the sense of different kinds of human beings?

Ghostlightning: right?

lelangir: yes

Pontifus: because, yeah, i don’t think that’s necessary

lelangir: black/ white w/e
…………yeah it is

Pontifus: it’s habitual

lelangir: in this specific political history it is
well discourse is inert
it doesnt move
it is specific
yes

Cuchlann: Answers, though, real quick: does a book have content if no one reads it?

Pontifus: no

Cuchlann: I use “read” in the broad sense.

Pontifus: well, not really

lelangir: oh god…uhhmmm
yes
it needs an author

Pontifus: granted that the author has read it, probably

Cuchlann: Not necessarily.

Pontifus: it doesn’t have meaning “by itself,” no

Ghostlightning: the author who rote it?
read while writing

lelangir: [again to reiterate, i'm jizzing]

Cuchlann: And anyway, the “reading” of the author violates the terms of my question.

lelangir: wait
iin your sentence

Cuchlann: If no one’s read the book, does it have any content?

lelangir: is the author the subject or the object

Cuchlann: The author is outside the scope of my question.
You’re in a room with a book. You’re illiterate.

lelangir: i mean

Pontifus: no, it doesn’t have meaning on its own, says i

lelangir: ok

Cuchlann: You’re unaware of the social mores concerning books.

Pontifus: well, then the book might mean firewood, but we’re talking about the text, i guess, lol

lelangir: but wait
false dichotomy?

Cuchlann: Pontifus has hit on where I’m going, at any rate.

lelangir: shit
owen term
sorry

lelangir: in the absense of one type of meaning is there total lack of meaning?

Cuchlann: Without reading, a book is merely paper and ink.

lelangir: “specific” social norms arent everything

Cuchlann: I’m talking about artistic meaning here, sorry.

lelangir: it could reprsent that the reader is stupid
oh ok
yes
so if you’re illiterate
artistic meaning is impossible
wait
no
not necessarily
not if you’re inculcated into the SOCIAL DISCOURSE that books are inherently beautiful

Cuchlann: Artistic meaning from reading is impossible.
I said outside that.

lelangir: LIKE FRANKENSTEIN’S MONSTER????

Cuchlann: Yes.

lelangir: if i remember….

Cuchlann: This is a philosophical hypothetical.

Pontifus: GOTHIC, OH SHI-

lelangir: lol

Cuchlann: Excellent example, actually.
If the Creature hadn’t learned to read, what would the books he found have meant to him?

Pontifus: it makes me really happy that, for the most part, i can just reach over and grab the pertinent examples off my shelves

lelangir: i have stuart hall et al. sitting here…

Cuchlann: I would have to go to another room, and step over, uh, other books, but yes.

Pontifus: which i hope means i’m doing pretty well as far as collecting, lol

lelangir: oh shit and some mary shelley too!

Cuchlann: I think I have my Aristotle in here right now…

lelangir: poetics is right here
collecting dust

Pontifus: poor poetics

Cuchlann: Yes, in the stack with the Shakespeare essays, the grammar book, and the Norton critical theory text.

lelangir: :(
so yeah…..

Cuchlann: Okay, so in our hypothetical situation, the book is drained of all artistic meaning.

lelangir: insofar as you are illiterate

Cuchlann: Yes, that’s given.

lelangir: incapable of directly producing experiential meaning
but that is not social meaning

Cuchlann: Now, here’s the part that pleases lelangir: this means that discourse is necessary for art to function.

lelangir: /jizz
isn’t art discursive anyway?
me farting is art

Cuchlann: Here’s the part that doesn’t please him: the art itself must necessarily be outside the discourse itself, as it has no meaning.

lelangir: socrates raping a young boy is art

Cuchlann: If done before an audience, yes, both can be true.

lelangir: ah yes!
the audience is abstracted
reduced to a feeling

Ghostlightning: the audience could be the boy itself

lelangir: ” the art itself must necessarily be outside the discourse itself, as it has no meaning.”
i dont get that part

Cuchlann: The audience must necessarily be removed from the art, as art has no practical purpose — and the boy would have practical concerns at that point.

lelangir: how is it necssary?
no wait
it’s not removed
because the discourse created it

Cuchlann: Discourse is about making meaning. Art makes no meaning on its own, and cannot take part in discourse, as discourse is a two-way street.

lelangir: as we said before
representation is constitutive of meaning
there is no meaning outside representation

Pontifus: ok, hang on there

Ghostlightning: activities with practical purposes cannot be read as art? how come?

lelangir: it did not exist prior to representation

Cuchlann: I cite Oscar Wilde.

Pontifus: how analogous is the phenomenological idea of the author consciousness dispossessing the reader to discourse?

Cuchlann: “All art is quite useless.”
I’ll dig up a link…

lelangir: getting a bit marxist here
how does art make no meaning?
what if its social commentary via play?

Cuchlann: Art makes no meaning.
The audience makes meaning.

lelangir: the art of being earnest
it’s good to be earnest

Cuchlann: http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/owilde/bl-owilde-pic-pre.htm

lelangir: yes…
so how does that make art situated outside discourse
does discourse “osmotize” it?

Ghostlightning: i’m familiar with the quote, but tieing a bow-tie for the purpose of looking good at a dinner party can be ‘artful’ or can’t it?

Cuchlann: Discourse observes art. It must be outside to be observed.

lelangir: no
what?

Cuchlann: Yes.

lelangir: observing is irrelevant to position

Cuchlann: No it’s not.

lelangir: how?

Pontifus: insofar as art isn’t practical?

Cuchlann: Let me line my ducks up for a second…

lelangir: if art is outside discourse it has no meaning in that discourse
no intrinsic art meaning
but it has social meaning
like mulattos
they are weird

Cuchlann: The meaning is within the discourse, because it’s not attached to the art.

lelangir: they dont exist in the discourse on blackness

Cuchlann: It’s in the space between.

Pontifus: but if the subject is the art, and the object is the discourse

lelangir: ah

Pontifus: they’re inside the same semiotic construct, sure

lelangir: oh ok isee that

Pontifus: but separate

lelangir: nice
hmmmm

Cuchlann: This is all reader-response and phenomenology, that the art doesn’t have the meaning, the audience does.

Ghostlightning: the audience, rather, creates the meaning you mean

Cuchlann: Or at least, my interpretation of those schools of thought.
Yes.

lelangir: i like chuchlann’s thought
that meaning is attached to the audience

Cuchlann: That’s why it’s possible to have different opinions on art.

lelangir: i’d like to view it as art being vacuum pockets in discourse

Ghostlightning: LELANGIR I’VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU THIS SINCE MY FIRST COMMENTS ON YOUR POSTS AT THAT

lelangir: …though different opinion is discourse in itself

Cuchlann: I don’t think I’d see too much of a problem with the very slight difference in that interpretation.
Yes, it is.

lelangir: but discourse defies quantum physics per se

Cuchlann: @Ghostlightning: haha.

lelangir: you can have multiple discourse in the same geopolitics
@ghostlightning….O_o

Cuchlann: I think that defines, not defies, quantum mechanics.

lelangir: oh yeah lol
oops
Cuchlann: Given that only in quantum mechanics can you have superposition.
:)

Ghostlightning: no, that the readers create the meaning, agreeing amongst themselves

lelangir: yeah…..

Cuchlann: Well now, it’s not that they’re agreeing amongst themselves.

Pontifus: or one reader agreeing with itself

lelangir: that’s so IKnight from last winter

Cuchlann: Go back to Dark Side of the Moon.
Okay, Pontifus got it, basically. Never mind.

Pontifus: i wish i had nexisted last winter

lelangir: no way

Cuchlann: I did, it was like any winter. ^_^

lelangir: from june-december
craziest time ever
or so owen tells me
but anyway
yeah, Cuchlann has convinced me

Pontifus: this is why i wanted him here, lol

lelangir: art’s lack of intrinstic meaning must implicate that discourse is attached to it. blah blah blah

Cuchlann: Art is, ultimately, an aesthetic experience. It can carry with it thoughts and opinions, but they won’t be worth anything if the art doesn’t make the audience feel.

Ghostlightning: the reader agrees with something as to waht a sign means, and communicates that meaning to others, the meaning strengthens, pending agreement from such others

Cuchlann: Hence Wilde’s line: There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.

lelangir: so…there’s a split between what art really is and what art is perceived to be
“modernism” is discourse
but that has no effect on what the art really is

Cuchlann: Yes.

lelangir: which n ever changes

Cuchlann: Art is basically art, always.

lelangir: yup

Cuchlann: That’s also why you get different readings of classic texts in different eras.

lelangir: yes

Cuchlann: Skim through a history of studies on Hamlet to see it in action.

lelangir: discourse is historically dependnat

Pontifus: now here’s where i jump in and be disagreeable…ghostlightning, i think that, once an agreement is established, there’s no making it stronger or weaker, it just IS

Cuchlann: But the aesthetic experience is not. Or at least, the strength of response. a differing system of mores could alter the particular aesthetic experience.

lelangir: ok well now that cuchlann has upset my notion of what things “are”, there are two routes

Ghostlightning: stronger in teh sense that more people agree, it becomse temporally on top of the heirarchies of meaning

lelangir: the “existential” route…and the social route

Pontifus: these agreements have relative strengths in different people’s artistic experiences, but no “ultimate” strength/weakness value

Ghostlightning: like for example: CODE GEASS = TRAINWRECK

lelangir: yep

Cuchlann: Oh, you youngsters (yes, I realize all our ages).
Because I would say X = trainwreck

Pontifus: geass is a trainwreck = true, geass is awesome = true, period

Cuchlann: But you guys probably don’t know anything about that.

Ghostlightning: it has power over code geass = not trainwreck, at present at least
wow, am i a youngster nao? LOL

lelangir: lol
32
ancient

Ghostlightning: both are true, but in practice, the former is more resonant

Pontifus: now, prevalent opinions, that’s a social thing, and isn’t related to artistic value

lelangir: wait…how’s that in rel. to an argument
isn’t an argument just a statement?

Ghostlightning: i argue even artistic value is a sign agreed upon by a society

Cuchlann: A statement that can be argued with, but yes.

lelangir: what it is directed at seems irrelevant

Ghostlightning: … a society of art theorists

lelangir: vis-a-vis its existential value
which is immutable
but its discourse potency….that’s different

Pontifus: “artistic value” as a term, sure, but not artistic value as applied

Ghostlightning: so art has no intrinsic value, as a meaning, has less power in practice

lelangir: i dont get it

Cuchlann: Actually, the lack of intrinsic meaning gives it more power.

Pontifus: agreed

lelangir: how?

Cuchlann: A crafted chair can be beautifully wrought, but ultimately it is a tool.

Ghostlightning: to use a cruder example, atheism (no theo) has less power than theism (yes theo)

Cuchlann: And as such, eventually even the most sensitive person will view it as a chair, to be sat upon.

lelangir: I guess I’m confused by greg’s use of “power”

Cuchlann: But art, with no use but to be art, to be “beautiful,” can never be written off as anything else.

lelangir: which is a loaded word in foucaultism…
oh wait hold on
art is art insofar as it has a definition
where did that definition come from?

Cuchlann: Ah. Power to affect an audience aesthetically.

Ghostlightning: if i sit on that artful chair, even artfully, am i reducing its artistic value?

Cuchlann: My definition comes from Wilde.

lelangir: oh shi- barthes again…

Cuchlann: I would say you aren’t affecting it, unless you break it.

lelangir: hmmmmmm sosifdkjsosjsojKJ!J!OIU$(*&(U93wt5w94u
so

Cuchlann: You simply occlude it, like standing in front of a painting.

lelangir: we’ve created art such that it has the agency to cast off structural hegemony
sorry i love that terminology
art has become art

Ghostlightning: the viewer, cannot experience the art the painter made, BUT HE CAN EXPERIENCE THE ART OF ME STANDING ARTFULLY IN FRONT OF IT

lelangir: yes

Ghostlightning: “ghostlightning’s shadow over cubism”

lelangir: but what is “art”
art came from where?
we say ‘art is art’
but that’s circular i think….

Cuchlann: Wilde again: We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless.
Art is a thing to be admired intensely.

lelangir: but….
that doesn’t consider its origin
or is origin pointless

Cuchlann: The origin is unimportant.

lelangir: why?

Cuchlann: The art stands before you. The author does not.

lelangir: no

Cuchlann: What is the origin of Beowulf?

lelangir: not origin as in author
origin as in meaning of the meaning of art

Cuchlann: The meaning is between you and the art.
That isn’t the origin.

Ghostlightning: etymology of art plz

Cuchlann: It’s the product of you consuming the art.

Pontifus: @ghostlightning observe, if you will, a battle of gods

lelangir: but
art has to be predicated upon something
everything is predicated
nothing is ahistoric
hence, from whence did art arrive

Pontifus: right, so
if nothing is ahistoric
“ahistoric” is nothing

lelangir: art cannot just exist all of a sudden

Pontifus: it doesn’t exist

Cuchlann: Art entered English through Anglo-Norman, from Old French.

Pontifus: so how is that important?

Cuchlann: It is created, but the artist effaces the creation with the completed work.

lelangir: wait
I mean
even art in an existential sense

Cuchlann: An orchestra doesn’t reveal its practices to the audience, only the performance.

lelangir: it must have a discursive root

Cuchlann: But it doesn’t matter to the aesthetic experience.

lelangir: correct me if i’m wrong (i probably am) its exisentialism needs discourse
guh so many types
no

Ghostlightning: the aesthetic experience is also up to the viewer/reader

Cuchlann: Art can be considered a product of discourse.

lelangir: but the aesthetic experience can be discursisve

Cuchlann: True.

Pontifus: insofar as discourse is one person agreeing with himself…is, i think, the idea, correct me if i’m wrong, o mighty cuchlann

Ghostlightning: i derive a lot of value watching practices

lelangir: ok

Cuchlann: Well, I’m generally inclined to say discourse requires at least two people, you folks came up with that one.

Ghostlightning: one person agreeing with the self, i find nothing wrong with it
i probably do it a lot

Pontifus: not i, lol

Ghostlightning: NONONO

Pontifus: it’s those focauldians over there

lelangir: lol

Ghostlightning: the discourse with the self
is between one’s memories

lelangir: nice

Ghostlightning: and the idea at hand

lelangir: your habitus
oh shi-
your habits
your consciousness

Ghostlightning: YES YES

Cuchlann: Hm. Okay, not bad, I can see that, I suppose.

lelangir: because
your identity is not stable

Ghostlightning: does the idea at hand, FIT?

lelangir: always morphing
being changed by external forces

Ghostlightning: with my past conceptions, etc?

lelangir: yes

Cuchlann: It works with the phenomenological idea of creating a second consciousness, which is one’s perception of the art.

lelangir: exactly

Ghostlightning: me: IS THIS ART?

lelangir: oh shi-
i dont get that….

Ghostlightning: or: IS MY IDEA OF ART… LIMITED?

lelangir: why does one need a 2nd con. for art?’

Cuchlann: It’s the same thing we said earlier, but recast into different terms.

lelangir: @Ghostlightning: i dont get that either

Cuchlann: Actually, now that I think of it, it’s probably a way to get at what you’re describing.

lelangir: yes ok i see that now

Cuchlann: Discourse within the self.

lelangir: but
that is predicated upon society

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: the self ineedss the othe
THE SELF NEEDS THE OTHER

Ghostlightning: instead of me listening to your words, i say it to myself, in my voice, to see if it ‘fits’ my self-concept
if it does, i probably will agree

lelangir: yes
all that is prediated upon memory
with your contact with society

Ghostlightning: memory yes

lelangir: no experience = no memory
= no discourse

Ghostlightning: THAT IS WHY WE REMEMBER LOVE

lelangir: nothing to discoure with or upon
lmfao

Ghostlightning: lololololol

lelangir: oh god…

Cuchlann: I have no problems with any of those statements, but they don’t alter the fact that art is solely aesthetic.

lelangir: in the existential sense
yeah
i guess

Cuchlann: In the experiential sense.

lelangir: if thats the right term
ok
oh yeah definitely
but then
there are fakers

Cuchlann: The experience is what I’m almost always concerned with, rather than the implications. :)

lelangir: “oh duuuuuude that art meant soooo much to me! [wanna fuck?]‘

Ghostlightning: since we agree, the idea becomes ‘stronger’

lelangir: but then
what i just said isnt even experiential
just machiavallian

Cuchlann: It’s based on experience.

Pontifus: sure, people lie, but i think our entire conversation here takes honesty for granted

Ghostlightning: um mutually exclusive?

lelangir: its just transplanting experience over social goals

Cuchlann: A lie is as based on experience as a truth, or else the liar wouldn’t be able to lie.

lelangir: wait
re@ghostlightning
it gets stronger?
yeah i suppose
that’s where discourse gets it strength
in #s

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: so

Ghostlightning: the grand march of ideas

lelangir: I think there is no finalized definition of art

Ghostlightning: never

lelangir: there are always contesting theories
of equal value

Ghostlightning: hegel: keikaku doori

Pontifus: which almost seems to be the way it has to be, but i haven’t put a lot of thought into that, so don’t ask me to back it up

lelangir: what is significant is each contesting theory’s political relevance

Cuchlann: No, political relevance is completely unimportant.

Ghostlightning: it is significant, yes, but i dunno about ultimate significance

lelangir: how’s it irrelevant?

Cuchlann: It’s an after-affect of the passage of art through consciousness.

Pontifus: it’s sociology

Ghostlightning: yea how?

lelangir: [insofar as we mean political in the same way]
i thought we said all theories were equal
one theory claims art is something beyond theory

Cuchlann: And I’m giving you mine. That’s what this conversation is, yes? ^_^

lelangir: so…we agree to disagree
that’s the end right?
so its FOR FUNNNNN
but yeah…
anyway

Cuchlann: It’s always the end. But didn’t you enjoy yourself?

lelangir: yeah

Ghostlightning: the art of conversation

Cuchlann: See, in my version, that’s the point.

lelangir: that’s actually the best conclusion lol
to enjoy yourself
?

Cuchlann: Aesthetic experience achieved.

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: i still dont like that….
[i'm still pleasuring myself]

Ghostlightning: and with agreement, the feeling is intensified

lelangir: if one theory proclaims art above theory

Cuchlann: Well, on a personal level, let me put it to you this way–

lelangir: that seems contradictory
it needs itself to invalidate itelf

Cuchlann: I didn’t start reading because of a political end (in any sense of the word political). I read habitually because I read once and the aesthetic experience appealed to me more than other pursuits.
And I never claimed art was above theory. In fact, when people claim that, I get angry.

lelangir: uhoh

Ghostlightning: nothing is intrinsically valuable over another thing

lelangir: i dont get it though…

Ghostlightning: people assign values into heirarchies

Cuchlann: Don’t get what?

lelangir: how….art can be nothing
but it needs meaning to be described in such a way
no wait
no it doesnt

Pontifus: thus spake derrida, kinda

lelangir: its nothing regardless
…

Ghostlightning: all this, is nothing, empty and meaningless

Pontifus: art being nothing is what lets it mean anything at all

lelangir: it exists if i dont see it
shiet…

Cuchlann: Who, like Zarathustra, found himself stinking in a cave, what?

lelangir: but then it doesnt exist…

Ghostlightning: its meaning is but a contingency of us meaning-makers

lelangir: so does that theory merely state that things are even if they aren’t?
ungh

Ghostlightning: and we, like the meaning, are ephemeral

Cuchlann: I never said art is nothing.
I said art has no intrinsic meaning. There’s a difference.

Pontifus: or, yeah

Cuchlann: Nothing has an intrinsic meaning.

lelangir: yes

Cuchlann: Trees don’t, or fire, or floods.

Pontifus: it is something that means nothing, inherently

Cuchlann: But they still exist.

lelangir: what i was getting at….hmmm

Ghostlightning: signs exist

lelangir: “existentialism” describes art as meaningless
do we even need existentialism for that MEANING in and of itself to continue to exist?
the meaning of meaningless

Cuchlann: Sartre… bleh.

Ghostlightning: kannagi exists, for the people who derive meaning from it (writer, producer, distributor, consumer, critic)

lelangir: so

Ghostlightning: and everyone will have an opinion

lelangir: but art is different i think
it’s much more abstract
that made little sense

Ghostlightning: and the majority of agreements, will have weight

Cuchlann: Kannagi exists as a bunch of digital files, and possibly some animation cels — or more likely, more digital files.

lelangir: waitwaitwitw go back to sartre
or is that thought wrong?

Cuchlann: The meaning is in the watching, not the existence.

Ghostlightning: each social group/entity will make it mean something

lelangir: that active knowledge is predicated upon existence of a buttress for that knowledge

Ghostlightning: yes, the experience, not the existence

Cuchlann: Oh, my ex just really liked Sartre, so I go “bleh.”

lelangir: oh

Ghostlightning: not experience isn’t limited to watching
selling, creating, discussing

Cuchlann: Yes, the experience. And it isn’t, no.

Ghostlightning: all part of it
i prefer camus to sartre

Cuchlann: But the thing itself isn’t part of any of those, except as a thing. It offers no special, extra value that wouldn’t be achieved with any other show in its place.

Ghostlightning: yes, the thing in itself is meaningless

lelangir: yes
but
that meaningless is meaningful

Pontifus: or, maybe it wouldn’t be achieved, but the important thing, i guess, is that it could be achieved

Ghostlightning: all things, in themselves are empty and meaningless

lelangir: important…

Ghostlightning: AND IT DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING that they are empty and meaningless
no consequence
no imnpact

lelangir: ok
insofar as we don’t observe them
maybe
its meaningless inasmuch as you make it meaningless, which is sort of impossible sounding

Ghostlightning: as long as when we do observe, we assign meaning, then it has consequence

lelangir: how do you make it meaningless?
you say
“this is meaningless”
but thats the same as “this is meaningful”

Ghostlightning: i cannot make it meaningless

lelangir: meaninglessness is another state of meaning
negative meaning
nevertheless

Ghostlightning: it is an acknowledgment that it has no ‘real’ ;true’ meaning

lelangir: meaning

Ghostlightning: aside from what we make for it
that’s what i mean
not a reduction of meaning to oblivion

lelangir: yeah

Ghostlightning: but an acknowledgment of the lack of ultimacy in the meaning i assign for the sign

Cuchlann: All right, with this new turn, I will retire. I have to get up early tomorrow.

Ghostlightning: thanks for participating!

Cuchlann: Someone save this and post it tomorrow.

Pontifus: i plan on it

lelangir: oh jesus

I keep forgetting Agrias is a dude.

I know it’s been a while since I posted — and even longer since I posted anything worth a damn.  Sorry about that.  I finished the draft of my project for History of the English Language, and and about to get going on my paper for Gothic novel.  Why should this excite you?  My paper is on the use of the Gothic in survival horror games.  I found a few articles about Silent Hill, and I’m playing SH2 specifically for the paper.  But I’m not going to talk about that specifically right now.  Instead, I mean to work out a little of the theory on video games I’ll be using — I’m applying phenomenology to video games.

Poulet was one of the leading figures in the field.  I’m actually working solely off the introduction to his work I just read, but I wanted to get this down.  Poulet describes the act of reading as entering into the author’s consciousness (he keeps to a Barthian idea of the author — he doesn’t mean the person who wrote the text, but the figure which acts as the collation between the texts) and actively studied the oevre of writers, rather than single texts.  He believed readers were receptacles for this authorial consciousness, and embodied “an interior universe of mental entities” (1319).  Basically, the reader absorbs the objects of the written consciousness, replacing the book with the world within, and the consciousness of the reader is dispossessed and is filled in, for a little while, with this author-consciousness.

First we must assume Poulet’s “book” can be any text.  That’s easy enough to do today, in a world where everything is considered a text.  Done.  So let’s apply this idea to video games.  The first problem we seem to run into is one of passivity — Poulet described the reader as passive when he or she is the receptacle, but gamers are not passive.  That is, if the gamer is passive for too long, we (usually, MGS notwithstanding) consider the game as poorly-made.  A game with no story does not function without activity on the part of the “reader.”  The gamer must act, or nothing happens — and this is true every moment.  Think of Pac-Man or Space Invaders.  Pac-Man especially — there are no real pauses, and none in the gameplay.  There are no cut-scenes, no text blocks delivering dialogue or exposition.  There is simply action.  So, for now, let’s rub out “passive” and write in “active,” then see if the rest of this stuff holds together.

Now, the game disc — or cartridge, if we’re being old-school — is replaced by the game itself.  We don’t think much about the medium of the game while we’re playing, so that feels on track with Poulet’s idea that the book is replaced.  Our knee-jerk reaction may be to say it can’t be the author’s consciousness, because there’s almost never a single author for a game.  But we’re not dealing with biographical authors here, but Barthian authors.  Sonic Team is the “author” for Sonic games, for example — it doesn’t matter if certain developers were fired or hired between games, the team is a cohesive force binding the games together.  If someone else were to release a Sonic game it wouldn’t be all that appropriate to consider it lumped together with the others, would it?  We would view it as a reaction, like Wide Sargasso Sea is to Jane Eyre.  The same characters appear in the same setting, but they’re never considered as two parts of the same authorial consciousness.

If authorial consciousness is theoretically available in a game, does the gamer become dispossessed and filled in with the authorial consciousness?  Yes, I would say so.  The gamer takes up the skills offered by the game, learns them well enough to do without reminders, and then moves through the world of the game.  It is less like being absorbed into a book and more like being caught up in a dance or a kata.  The gamer  is doing precisely what the author intends — and yes, that’s what happens, even with the idea of the gamer as an “agent of chaos.”  The game world is constructed for the gamer to move through in the same way Poulet posits the world of the book is made to move into the reader.  We’re simply dealing with activity rather than passivity.

I’ve managed to map a theory about books onto games.  They are still different forms of media.  My speculative idea here is that the activity of the game is what induces this state in the gamer, not the story (if a story is present).  Now, I love good stories, and I love them in video games.  On my own I prefer to play games with strong stories, like Half-Life or Shadow of the Colossus.  I use those two examples not only because they are two of my favorite games, but also because they exemplify where I’m trying (in part) to go here.  Little of the story is ever delivered, in either game, to a passive reader — how many cut-scenes are there in either game?  True, they’re not absent, but more often than not the gamer is gaming, and not watching.  Games dispossess the gamer through motion — the gamer’s own motion.  Gamers are not immersed — logically, if we really did map ourselves onto the protagonists, then alarmists might actually have ground to stand on when they claim games make us more violent.  But that’s not what we’re doing.  We’re coming in contact with the authorial consciousness, “enacting a wondrous merging with the presence of someone wholly other and unique” (1319).  A video game is the least immersive form of entertainment, because it requires complete, willed action on the part of the gamer (I hold, along with most book-nerds, that reading is an active process, much more so than watching movies or TV, but I’m not talking about the same kind of activity here.  In books it’s active reading, a usage of the reader’s consciousness to, in Poulet’s terms, absorb the secondary consciousness.  The reader seeks the state of that passivity that lets the author come visit.  Readers act on themselves; gamers, on the other hand, act upon something external to themselves. So, really, revising my earlier statement — gamers dispossess themselves).

All sorts of related conundrums come up at this point.  What is the role of the protagonist in this relationship?  Does this affect the story, as I was talking about earlier?  The protagonist thing — I’m still doing reading on that.  I have an article to read all about the construction of protagonists in games, actually.  The story, if one is present in a game, is affected by the gamer.  Even if the game is perfectly linear, it isn’t.  The gamer controls the pace at which the story comes to them.  A gamer can still be actively engaging in that trade-off of consciousness — that is, still playing — even if they aren’t advancing the story at all.  Think of modern sandbox games, such as Grand Theft Auto 3, where the gamer is still playing if they steal an ice cream truck and ride around a farm but refusing to do any storyline quests.  The gamer could even stop and watch the sun set over Vvardenfell — that’s still playing.  Doing these things, or their analogues, in the act of reading a book or watching a movie, effectively stops the act of reading or watching.  Going back and checking out a cool scene in Star Wars isn’t absorbing the author’s consciousness — that consciousness is delivered to the watcher through forward motion through the story.  Pausing in reading Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell to reflect on the beauty of Clarke’s prose isn’t absorbing the consciousness either, it’s aesthetic appreciation of craft.  So even in the most linear of games, the fact of how gamers dispossess themselves to take in, rather than receive, the authorial consciousness turns the story into something that results from the gamer’s actions.

“Your princess is in another castle” isn’t memorable because of the struggle Mario went through to finish this castle; it’s memorable because of the authorial consciousness successfully negating the last moments of gamer-action, spurring the gamer forward to new heights of action.

citations from The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism.  Vincent  B. Leitch, ed.  New York:  W. W. Norton & Co.  2001.

This isn’t really about literary criticism, something I’m not really literate in anyway. But I’m going to share my thoughts on the origin of the text and its context, as Chuchlann enjoys how Frye “strips away the historical and political meanings from texts.”

Not to say that’s a bad thing, I don’t really care about the text itself, so to speak. Chuchlann made the useful distinction between using the text and reading it. I probably perform the former. Not to say that gender studies and post-colonial hoohah hold much interest, it’s that I see it, write about it, think its presence alone is interesting, I wouldn’t fret that there’s a prime example of what we may be likely to call “the magical negro” in LoGH. It’s like “oh wow, look, Mashengo saves the day,” and ends there.

But anyway, the text isn’t ahistorical. Though we may enjoy, for the sake of enjoyment, abort it and severe that contextual umbilical cord, and while there’s nothing “wrong” with doing whatever it is you want to do with the text, it can, in certain instances, kill the author, and assign it meaning.

“[T]he writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original. His only power is to mix writings, to counter the ones with the others, in such a way as never to rest on any one of them.” In this sense, the writer is not the creator, not the entire maternal organism that nurtures the embryonic text – the writer is only a fraction of the biological functions that constitute and develop the text; it’s society, the politico-economic functions and relations of force that labor over and deliver the text into reality. “The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture.”¹

Here’s an interesting example. Earlier in the millennium Kenny G, the infamous smooth jazz musician, overdubbed the Louis Armstrong single “What a Wonderful World”. The jazz scene went batshit because a mongrel, smooth jazz musician had the audacity to pollute the music of a founding father of jazz with his own bastard graffiti. Thus responded Pat Metheny:

…when Kenny G decided that it was appropriate for him to defile the music of the man who is probably the greatest jazz musician that has ever lived by spewing his lame-ass, jive, pseudo bluesy, out-of-tune, noodling, wimped out, fucked up playing all over one of the great Louis’s tracks (even one of his lesser ones), he did something that I would not have imagined possible. He, in one move, through his unbelievably pretentious and calloused musical decision to embark on this most cynical of musical paths, shit all over the graves of all the musicians past and present who have risked their lives by going out there on the road for years and years developing their own music inspired by the standards of grace that Louis Armstrong brought to every single note he played over an amazing lifetime as a musician. By disrespecting Louis, his legacy and by default, everyone who has ever tried to do something positive with improvised music and what it can be, Kenny G has created a new low point in modern culture – something that we all should be totally embarrassed about – and afraid of. We ignore this, “let it slide”, at our own peril.²

Interestingly, no one bothered (from the sources I’ve read) to question the position the text – the song – was located in. George David Weiss, a co-author of the song explained the meaning behind the song:

[a]t that time, during the Vietnam War, there was great confrontation between the races. Louis would try to cut down on confrontation. Louis would bring people together with love and with music.

Therefore, I wanted to write something that would reflect Louis’ life without being biographical. So I used the allegory of colors in the lyrics “The colors of the rainbow so pretty in the sky, are also on the faces of the people goin’ by.” I was of course hinting at better understanding between blacks and whites – hoping we could somehow get together and lessen the tensions between the races.³

[I know that one quote doesn't prove that's what everyone thought but I couldn't find any other sources that spoke directly to the purposes here.]

There’s a shifting, discursive flux here. The inert text is surrounded by the ephemeral discourse. 1968 marks the Civil Rights era and Vietnam. 2000 marks the cultural politics of a dying art. What was intended forty years ago to be a plea to cultural harmony turns into a battle over the politics of authenticity.

What is the role of the musician? The practitioner? The reader? The writer? Is the musician simultaneously a writer and a reader, propagating the textual basis to create, in a similar nature to that of microcosmic criticism (as opposed to the criticism as lens view), a text in itself? Kenny G’s rendition is a text, a reading of a writing, a writing nevertheless.

Thus reading texts within any discourse doesn’t necessarily strip it of its historicity. The liquid discourse that inundates and surrounds the text is captured in record and history, and that is what must be taken into account primarily. The text is thus meaningless, and always so: “[t]he reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost; a text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination. Yet this destination cannot any longer be personal; he is simply that someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted.”⁴

Foucault expresses that “history is one way in which society recognizes and develops a mass of documentation with which it is inextricably linked.”⁵ He also stated that the document isn’t inert, and by that notion it’s easier to see how the text is handled by the reader, it’s not a monolithic object, it’s, as Barthes put it, a space; a locus of inextricable cultural influence. Inevitably, draining a social space of any fluid discourse allows for a reading that isn’t contextual, enjoyable, critical to the merits of the text alone. But what is the merit of the text? – is that able to be separated from the conditions under which it was wrought? Of course the “original” or “authorial” merits of the text are inseparable from its historic discourse, What a Wonderful World may be a song steeped in political warfare, and it may have been extraordinarily well-received due to its social and cultural message, but that doesn’t seem like the case for critics of Kenny G who complain more about the person from which it was concretized in reality as a cultural symbol, Louis Armstrong, not the social climate out of which and for which it was birthed.

1 Barthes, Roland (trans. Heath, Stephen), “Death of the Author” from “Image Music Text,” Hill and Wang: New York, 1977, p. 146.
2 Pat Metheny on Kenny G, June 5, 2005, http://www.jazzoasis.com/methenyonkennyg.htm and http://www.allaboutjazz.com/articles/arti0900_03.htm
3 Janice L. Brewster and George David Weiss, Spotlight on George David Weiss, Music Educators Journal, Vol. 78, No. 6 (Feb., 1992), pp. 50-52, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3398384?seq=3
4 Barthes, p. 148.
5 Foucault, Michael, “The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language,” New York: Pantheon Books, 1972, p. 7.