bladderwrack: (Default)
bladderwrack ([personal profile] bladderwrack) wrote2009-06-30 08:30 am

Nothing much to add to the warnings thing everyone's been posting about

However, I do feel like complaining about the fashion for framing debate and edification in terms of contrived analogies that are more confusing and difficult to follow than the actual subject beiing discussed!

Cropped Scan Theatre says it: "Tsuzuki: Well, you see, this candle represents your life. And, this shoe... represents Maria. And, uh, this pitcher of water represents the guy who's been controlling Maria! So, if you don't want your shoes to be on fire, metaphorically speaking... wait, no, your shoes are on fire. So the only way to put them out is... uh... ... wait, no, I've got it. This chair represents bringing Maria back to life, and the shoe--"

You're making my head hurt here, gaiz*.



*The actual reason I have a problem with this technique is because it smacks of being talked down to, and that is a thing that bothers me considerably more than is rational.


Have gone through the knees of my one passably smart pair of jeans again. I don't know how this happens, it is always the knees. =_=
phoebe_zeitgeist: (Default)

[personal profile] phoebe_zeitgeist 2009-06-30 02:00 pm (UTC)(link)
To the extent I'm among the guilty parties, let me take this opportunity to apologize. I understand precisely why the sense of being talked down to is maddening, and I don't think it's remotely irrational of you. And to the extent I have talked down to anyone in the course of the argument, you have not been among those I was talking down to. What you are is one of the writers/artists whose work I feel strongly about the culture of fandom not attempting to mess with in any way.

I don't know why this round turned me into a raving, frothing maniac. But it certainly seems to have done. Maybe I should just go back and re-read Cropped Scan Theatre until I get over it?
phoebe_zeitgeist: (Default)

[personal profile] phoebe_zeitgeist 2009-07-02 02:24 pm (UTC)(link)
And reading backward, now I see that I've already said that thing about originality. Annoying *and* repetitive, For The Win! But like Elizabeth Bennet, I am a very selfish creature. And I want to be as certain as I can be that no one comes and tries to do any oppressing of any interesting writers in the future.

What happened, of course, is that my own buttons got pushed at some point in the original argument. There was just something about the combination of triumphal tone -- 'Look at my cost/benefit analysis! I win, plus everyone who doesn't agree is evil!' -- combined with really basic, obvious problems with the analysis that turned me straight into Law School Girl. Or, as the classic cartoon has it, 'Someone is wrong on the Internet!'
phoebe_zeitgeist: (Default)

[personal profile] phoebe_zeitgeist 2009-07-02 02:14 pm (UTC)(link)
No, you're right, I totally have. I even remember the post -- it was about "From Eroica With Love," and my bitter disappointment upon discovering that there was a fandom, but that it was all writing fairly stereotypical romances between the lead characters. And I probably wasn't clear in that post about the degree that this all worked for me because (in part) I was totally and completely ignorant about anime and manga as genres, their tropes, and their relationship to Japanese culture.

It's made me somewhat uneasy on the political level all along, because it smacks of the attitude that has been labeled "orientalism." Plus, of course, the dreaded Cultural Appropriation. But I can rationalize this, and do, by telling myself that I know damned well I'm misreading the relevant works, and not trying to work out anything about their place in their own cultural context from them.

- But yeah. As I've encountered other anime and manga sources, it's become increasingly obvious that some of the things that are so refreshing to me, coming from Western culture, are every bit as patterned and predictable within their home culture as they are new to me. If I read manga long enough and widely enough, I can bet that I'll be as twitchy about the predictable sibling tropes in Japanese popular media as I am now about the American Daddy Plot.

For what it's worth? You're one of the genuinely original writers I don't want to see asked to put labels on all her stuff. Um, oops?
phoebe_zeitgeist: (Default)

[personal profile] phoebe_zeitgeist 2009-07-06 11:51 am (UTC)(link)
since it plays into the "the Orient is inscrutable/you Westerners wouldn't understand" meme even if you didn't mean it that way, but wevs.

Is it going to make you want to chew your foot off to get out of the trap, metaphorically speaking, if I argue with you about this one? Because I semi-disagree -- that is, I don't know that I can argue that no one could take this as playing into the inscrutable-Orient thing,¹ but I can and will argue for this kind of taking-out-of-context as a useful approach in the arts and sciences,² and one that's by no means confined to the way the West has approached non-Western cultures. Within our own tradition I can pick off two examples of much the same thing going on, without even thinking hard about it: the 19th century Gothic revival (Ivanhoe, Violet le Duc, you know), and the 12th century misreading of Ovid's Ars Amatoria that turned it into one of the foundation documents of the cult of courtly love.

Interesting things happen, that is, when you encounter the artifacts of another culture without mediation. Or, they can. This isn't to discount the value of trying to understand what they mean within their home cultures, just to say that both processes have their value. And I think we lose something when we discount the former too much, as we may easily do out of suspicion of our cultural heritage of cheerful aggression and pillage.

But, I don't really mean to go on endlessly at you about this, not if it's going to be irritating to deal with. I'd been half-meaning to do a whole top-level post about this stuff, is all, and now it's kicking around in my head, and this conversation triggered it.

And I feel guilty. Honest to God, talking to me is like inviting a vampire in.

¹After all, you've just argued it, which is pretty conclusive.
²Under the circumstances, I feel compelled to drop a footnote restricting this to the Western European/American intellectual tradition. Which isn't to say that it isn't true of other cultures, only that this is the only one I feel able to comment on.
phoebe_zeitgeist: (Default)

But at least you get superscript code out of it!

[personal profile] phoebe_zeitgeist 2009-07-06 04:15 pm (UTC)(link)
I used a cool feature in the Apple system to bypass the need for the actual code, but I bet I can find it.

-- aaand this is me, hedging those bets. I can find something. For the superscript 1, I see Unicode 00B9. But for the superscript 2, I see Unicode 00B2, which makes that Unicode 00B9 seem suspicious to me. Even though it shows up in a neat table that also gives me a superscript 3 as Unicode 00B3, and no higher numbers as superscripts in the 00B range at all.

Perhaps this Unicode thing is entirely irrelevant? If so, I wonder what the devil it actually is.
phoebe_zeitgeist: (Default)

[personal profile] phoebe_zeitgeist 2009-07-06 04:21 pm (UTC)(link)
And here's something better. Forget trying to code the individual characters; just use this handy html tag: [SUP] [/SUP].

Or so the Google tells me. Let me try it here, with the classic example: E=mc2.