So I just stayed up to write a counter to a YouTube commentor who tried to call me "snobbish" for hoping the FFX remaster comes with an option for Japanese dialogue with English text. Just an _OPTION_. I didn't say that it should only be in Japanese dialogue. I didn't say that all English dubs suck, just for being in English. He said he couldn't understand how people who don't speak a language can enjoy hearing it, as if he would never even try accepting such a thing, all while implying that I was somehow the narrow-minded one. I politely explained to him that enjoying Japanese voice acting is only snobbish if it's paired with badmouthing English, just for being English, and that growing an affinity for a foreign language isn't different from enjoying Italian opera, Spanish songs, or non-English speakers becoming Beatles fans.
Things like this sadden me a little, because speaking in forums with other geeks, about geeky subjects (such as videogames, in this case), usually comes with the expectation that there would be no persecution. But some people can't just say "I like this"; they *have* to say "what you like sucks compared to what I like". Now, there are people out there who love to argue, and I say, let them get together and have their fun. ...Just leave out those of us who don't want to play that game. When I go to a convention with like-minded people, I hope to feel less attacked or embarassed for my interests, versus the majority of time outside a convention. But geek culture is plagued by elitism. Perhaps it is a sad reaction to being persecuted in most daily, non-geek life. It's very tempting to turn around and flaunt one's self, once you finally reach a position of confidence. I was victim to being an elitist once. I'd like to think that I grew out of it. I'd even more like to think that *everyone* eventually grows out of it.
But encountering narrow-minded people was a risk I had to take. I wanted the industry and studios to know what I would like in FFX's remaster. I just had to increase the chances that my hopes would be considered for the actual product. This time, I couldn't just sit back and hope.
All the while during Devil May Cry anime's development, the industry kept saying that they wanted to hear what the fans wanted, and that they were willing to cater to the fans' enjoyment. But I never said anything, and probably lots of other fans didn't either, so Kari Whalgren didn't get cast as Lady. Even though she _is_ Lady in the DMC games! ;~;! The voice actress who was cast was great, but I was reeeeally nostalgic for that voice I heard while playing DMC3. *.*... On the other hand, Dante's voice actor from the games made it into the anime dub...All thanks to the fans voicing their opinions. I can't ignore anymore that it works (sometimes).
The ironic thing is that the YouTube commentor generalizing any affinity for seiyuu, by anyone not fluent in Japanese, as "snobbish", sounded just as unimformed, narrow-minded, and---dare I say---"snobbish" as the elitists who proclaim all dubs suck, just for being in English. I think both types of people need to give both languages an objective listen. And listen to people the same way.
I can understand that there are a lot of over-enthusiastic otaku out there, vocally and constantly practicing Japanese (very badly), and completely oblivious to how annoying they are. I can understand that people who say they dislike "non-Japanese people who like Japanese anime/language/culture" are reflexively mistaking everyone who likes anime in Japanese, to be like those obnoxious types they've seen. And perhaps the non-anime fans who put up with that aggrivation don't know how to counter in an articulated way, especially without publically sounding like a bigot against another culture. But I suppose the way I feel is that I don't like being generalized with that group either. The geeks against otaku are making assumptions about me that portray me as narrow-minded; they assumed I hate dubs, just because I also like subs. Or they try to make me feel wrong because of my interests. And I don't appreciate it. That's why I gave up Comic Con. I've worked hard to be open-minded and considerate of others, while still enjoying my hobbies. And quite frankly, this type of discrimination is getting to a point where they're saying it's wrong to enjoy anything foreign, unless it matches your biological ethnicity or you're currently in the country of that hobby's origin. ~x~! I can't believe this happens in America, of all places... But enough bitterness. I don't want to fight anymore. I just want to have fun, switching between both English and Japanese tracks, to increase the re-play value of whatever I'm watching/playing.
...My apologies. Before this incident, I was completely oblivious to the notoriety of YouTube comments. So, this hit me out of nowhere. My previous experience with YouTube comments were almost all positive or polite. Only fairly recently did I hear an implication that YouTube comments tend to be mostly "trolls", "flames", or whatever else we're calling online thoughts without much thought in them. So, now I know better and will end my rant.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
late-night theories: What is cute?
First, fan-art. This is a revised version of my last animated gif.
http://mysticdragon3.deviantart.com/#/d4q34b7
So I was just at this website
lovelyloey.me/how-to-make-cute-things
that had a blog entry about the "golden rule to making cute things". Basically, "pastel felt + face = cute". Though that is absolutely true, I was expecting a little more on the technical aspects of cute, in a graphical sense. That website was about felt and color, but examining things like the face, was more the direction I wanted to see.
Then I remembered that I already had learned the technical aspects of what comprises "cute". From many different sources, over the years, that I can't even remember who to cite now. Combined with my inclination towards Evolutionary Psychology, the answer for "what is cute?" has always been right in front of me.
Basically, "cute" can be described as a human aesthetic, ingrained into our emotions, which causes us to reflexively feel protective over our young. Look at all the things which are considered "cute": big eyes, pastels, large head paired with tiny body, uncoordinated movements, etc. These are all the traits of human babies. Yet, when we see puppies with big eyes, pastel inanimate objects, large-headed plushies, or bumbling kittens, it all gets an "awwwwwwwww". ^_^ These are all cues which tell our deeply biological instincts, that these are babies. And it's more than likely, that the humans who have evolved through now, were descended from the ancestors who best protected their young. It's an evolutionary advantage to be instinctively protective and attentive towards young. Apparently, *so* important that the emotion has extended to react towards non-human young as well.
We often talk about cute in terms of the object which is cute. But the true importance of cute is in our reaction towards it. It is an emotion.
Emotions evolved as part of the survival instinct and gives humans (or anything which has developed emotions) the will to live. For example, a water buffalo may get bitten by a komodo dragon, tire from infection at the bite, and precariously just lie there, while the dragons swarm to eat it. But a man who I heard was lost in the desert once, kept pushing forward, rather than succumbing to sedentary dehydration, because he didn't want his wife to gain everything during his current divorce. The animal with stronger emotions does tend to have more motivation to survive. A buffalo may fear the komodo dragons enough to run away, but those emotions seemed to fall short in the face of physical weariness from injury. On the other hand, a human suffering the physical weariness of dehydration, has managed to push to survive past it, because of his emotions. Emotions really can be "mind over matter", and become the crucial factor towards survival. (Or irrationality in the face of physical realities.) So we humans have developed strong emotions, that are rooted in furthering our chances for survival, as individuals and in perpetuation of our species.
If cute is an advantageous, reflexive, emotional protectiveness and attentiveness towards things which resemble human babies, then logically, all humans should have a strong affinity for "cute". Yet, in society, men are generally close-lipped about "cute", while women seem to unabashedly proclaim it. Not to be sexist or anything, but is it safe to say that more females have evolved to have a stronger reaction to "cute", vs males? Or is this an illusion created by culture curtailing biology?
Certainly, it is our cultures which have generally warned men against enjoying "cute", more than human biology. I know plenty of guys who love "cute". It's a human thing, not just a female thing. And in the evolution of a species, it would be more advantageous if every mature, capable individual, was willing to protect and nurture the young. And yet, with the constraints of culture, men tend to only feel free to use the word "cute", in terms of a female they find attractive. This seems to be in keeping with the use of "cute" to express a feeling of protectiveness. Perhaps this schism in society allowing the genders to express affinity for "cute" is based upon attempts for distinction between the genders. Studies have shown that ovulating women prefer more masculine faces. So perhaps it's biology that society has taken a little too far. But if it furthers procreation, which also helps with perpetuation of a species, I guess the survival instinct has let that slide. Still, having all members of a species willing to protect the young, is waaaay more important to species survival. I think that takes precedence over instincts developed for procreation. So I have personally concluded that males and females both have strong affinity for "cute", but the males tend to be constrained by human society to express those feelings.
Look at Japan, for instance. So much of the aesthetic for inanimate objects, graphics, and even utilitarian objects openly adhere to "cute". For example, when Crash Bandicoot was ported to Japan, they had to re-design him with no teeth...like a baby. Cute is more prevalent in current-day Japan. Men there even seem more free to call things "cute", even unrelated to an attractive girl. (At least, that's what I've observed from live-action writing and videos.) Part of this could be attributed to the consumer power of teenage girls, driving most markets, with their love of "cute", as well as the expected use of their freedom to love cute. But I'd like to think that that marketing trend simply gave men the freedom to express affinities which were already there. It'd like to think *all* humans are capable of protectiveness, affection, and care.
Though---not to be sexist or anything, but---in terms of evolutionary survival, perhaps it is only really essential that females have a strong reaction to "cute". Females carry the babies and perpetuate the species. Because of that, I have heard many scientists in documentaries make the claim that, only the females are really important, in terms of biological survival of a species. Even the rare species of lizard, made up entirely of clones, are all female. A species only really needs the ones who create the next generation. That's why women are built to live longer: From our larger fat stores (women have a higher proportion of fat to muscle, compared to men) to our double X chromosomes (always have a back-up copy for any gene, in case of flaws). Women have biologically developed to live longer, to increase chances of perpetuating the species. To that end, it could be much more essential to the species that females especially have an affinity for "cute". A greater emotional reaction of protectiveness, attention, and care, better ensures that the babies, carrying on the species, have an increased chance for survival---not just in terms of mortal protection, but also in nurturing development to grow a stronger species. Sure, it's great if all humans have a strong protectiveness over "cute", but if someone has to go, males are usually expendable. (Sorry. The scientists in the documentaries I watch, said it first.)
So what exactly are the "cute" traits which evoke the identification of babies for humans?
1) Large eyes.
Humans eyes do not really grow over the course of development. Babies are born with adult-sized eyes, and their bodies grow around them. Therefore, the eyes of human babies are proportionally larger, relative to their heads/bodies.
2) Large head, small body.
SD (super-deformed) and chibi character designs take their cues from the developmental proportions of babies as well. Humans have some of the largest brains in proportion to our bodies. Big brains, mean big skulls, which mean, big heads. The rest of the body's development can catch up later. But from the very beginning, humans start with large brains. It's our head-start before the other species.
3) Pastel color.
This is just a personal conjecture of mine. But perhaps this relates to babies' skin. When compared to mature, human adults, babies do not have a build up of dead or dying, outer layers of dull skin, for protection. Babies are born pink, or pale, relative to their mature skin pigmentation. And pale generally equates to pastel.
4) Un-coordination.
I once saw an elephant documentary where the baby tried to manipulate objects with its trunk, that gripped and flopped around like a wet noodle. I couldn't get enough of it. ^.^ Babies have less developed muscles. Even the herd animals, like antelope and deer, that walk minutes after being born, wobble when they first get up. And that moment always seems adorable for some reason. Human babies have such undeveloped muscles at birth, that it takes some time before they are able to even squirm around or roll over. This may be one of the most helpless traits of young, and predictably evoke the most affection for cuteness.
5) Small size.
In keeping with the traits of babies, small things are often equated as being "cute". I don't think I have to explain babies being born small. Immediately recognizing diminutive things as being baby-like is advantageous. It increases a the young's chances for survival to immediately evoke protectiveness and attention. And with the species' survival as a whole also riding on this immediate recognition, it's advantageous to evolve adults with reflexive emotions towards something simply because it is small. After all, if a baby isnt' developed enough to do anything else to evoke affection or advertise it needs protection, it can at least be small.
6) Roundness.
A round mochi is cuter than a cube of the same size and color. Sorry, Tofu Records. But I will say that your mascot plushie did manage to round it's edges/corners, simply by being a soft plushie. Can it be that babies are born without sharp edges because it would harm the mother during gestation and birth? Very possible. While infant animals will generally not have horns (or other sharp body parts) until maturity, that is more a question of the time to develop those parts. A baby bird, on the other hand, will not only be born with an angular beak, but even a little "egg tooth" to break free of it's shell. But human babies are soft and round all over. So to humans, round is "cute".
7) Simplicity.
This may have less to do with human babies and more with human psychology. At a convention panel, examining manga, the panelist noted that the human mind has more freedom to "fill in the blanks" with whatever they wish for most, when the space/design is not constrained by realistic details. Heroes are drawn with simple faces, while villains have more realistic facial features, he noted. Much in the same way that a blank, Shoujo manga panel allows the reader to feel the intended emotion, more than hear some words or see a specific image from the manga-ka. Or how an anime director will turn the camera away/off before the climactic moment everything has built towards. (See the end of the Lucky Star anime, or the quick cuts away at the end of Kingdom Hearts games.) When the moment is in your head, it becomes everything you expected and hope for, with the advantage of having every personal inflection of each individual watching the experience---because it happens in each person's head, rather than on screen. Emotions are more strongly evoked through implication, by way of simplicity's enticement to fill-in-the-blanks. And "cute" is about emotional reaction.
8) Faces.
Eyes and mouth. Humans will see that in anything with 2 dots and a line slightly lower, between them. Humans are egocentric. And it is an evolutionary advantage for us to be so. (This, I remember Scott McCloud writing about.) As social animals, it is important that we become highly proficient in our main means for social interaction. In contrast to other social animals, like bees or dogs, humans have abandoned scent. One of the primary forms of communication which humans must recognize are facial expressions. Humans must immediately recognize faces, to immediately start their familiarization with learning its intricacies. This is why babies are born, recognizing faces, and why autistic people have so much trouble fitting into a society, built primarily for communication through facial expressions. Humans must become proficient with faces. Humans interested in faces gain an advantage. Therefore, humans have probably developed an instinctual affinity for faces.
9) Anthropomorphism.
Gijinka cosplay, talking animals in cartoons, and little cakes with smiling faces...
This is the same egocentricity as human's instinctual affinity for faces. The same biological advantages too. Humans identify with other humans. Humans *must* be interested in other humans to survive or thrive in such a social species. We empathize with things for the same reason. When our pets imitate human behaviors, it's called "cute". It is advantageous for their survival as well. We find affinity for and share companionship with people of similar interests; we build bonds with people we identify with. And those people who built emotional bonds with us, are more likely to survive with our help. It is survival instinct to participate in this dialogue of identification.
But it also speaks to one of the fundamentals of human psychological development. The infant mind begins as egocentric, knowing nothing but one's self. After the "terrible twos" resolve coming to terms with acknowledging others in addition to one's self, humans begin to try to relate to each other. This is the origin of societies, from social creatures, who have emotions. The emotions are necessary for mutual advantage through cooperation, because emotions allow humans to understand others. As children develop, they try to understand others, by considering how they themselves would feel in the same situations. Identification with others outside ourselves, as well as projecting that identification onto those others outside ourselves, is a fundamental development of the human species.
We like seeing things which are not human, take on human traits. Personification and anthropomorphism is adorably "cute".
10) Child-like.
All the other traits I've mentioned, speak of the visual or biological cues of infancy, but when I say "child-like", the emphasis is more on personality traits. This can be anything from "childishness" to "innocence". It's all subjective, because what different people imagine "child-like" to equate, is dependent on too many individual variants, experiences, and points of view. But evoking an affinity towards the young, once again, still speaks to our survival instinct for our species. Ask any fangirl of America from Hetalia. The fandom has created this image of him which is genki, impulsive, pouts, bratty, loves candy, goofs off, plays games, and is earnestly honest, in an innocent sort of way. And those same fangirls contrast that image, with a mature, parental image of England. Fangirls like a childish character, for the same reason the biological instinct in a mother finds children adorable. Maybe even the same way that girlfriends laugh-off "boy's immaturity" with a smile. Child-like is "cute".
Well, I've laid down the basic theory. Cute is the evocation of baby cues, and protective feelings. It is advantageous and thus, survival instinct. I would love to draw an example demonstrating the theories, and a contrasting opposite of all those traits listed, but I'm really thrashed, staying up this late. I need Tylenol. x~x And maybe it would be more interesting to see lots of different people's ideas of what was the opposite of all those cute traits. ^^?
http://mysticdragon3.deviantart.com/#/d4q34b7
So I was just at this website
lovelyloey.me/how-to-make-cute-things
that had a blog entry about the "golden rule to making cute things". Basically, "pastel felt + face = cute". Though that is absolutely true, I was expecting a little more on the technical aspects of cute, in a graphical sense. That website was about felt and color, but examining things like the face, was more the direction I wanted to see.
Then I remembered that I already had learned the technical aspects of what comprises "cute". From many different sources, over the years, that I can't even remember who to cite now. Combined with my inclination towards Evolutionary Psychology, the answer for "what is cute?" has always been right in front of me.
Basically, "cute" can be described as a human aesthetic, ingrained into our emotions, which causes us to reflexively feel protective over our young. Look at all the things which are considered "cute": big eyes, pastels, large head paired with tiny body, uncoordinated movements, etc. These are all the traits of human babies. Yet, when we see puppies with big eyes, pastel inanimate objects, large-headed plushies, or bumbling kittens, it all gets an "awwwwwwwww". ^_^ These are all cues which tell our deeply biological instincts, that these are babies. And it's more than likely, that the humans who have evolved through now, were descended from the ancestors who best protected their young. It's an evolutionary advantage to be instinctively protective and attentive towards young. Apparently, *so* important that the emotion has extended to react towards non-human young as well.
We often talk about cute in terms of the object which is cute. But the true importance of cute is in our reaction towards it. It is an emotion.
Emotions evolved as part of the survival instinct and gives humans (or anything which has developed emotions) the will to live. For example, a water buffalo may get bitten by a komodo dragon, tire from infection at the bite, and precariously just lie there, while the dragons swarm to eat it. But a man who I heard was lost in the desert once, kept pushing forward, rather than succumbing to sedentary dehydration, because he didn't want his wife to gain everything during his current divorce. The animal with stronger emotions does tend to have more motivation to survive. A buffalo may fear the komodo dragons enough to run away, but those emotions seemed to fall short in the face of physical weariness from injury. On the other hand, a human suffering the physical weariness of dehydration, has managed to push to survive past it, because of his emotions. Emotions really can be "mind over matter", and become the crucial factor towards survival. (Or irrationality in the face of physical realities.) So we humans have developed strong emotions, that are rooted in furthering our chances for survival, as individuals and in perpetuation of our species.
If cute is an advantageous, reflexive, emotional protectiveness and attentiveness towards things which resemble human babies, then logically, all humans should have a strong affinity for "cute". Yet, in society, men are generally close-lipped about "cute", while women seem to unabashedly proclaim it. Not to be sexist or anything, but is it safe to say that more females have evolved to have a stronger reaction to "cute", vs males? Or is this an illusion created by culture curtailing biology?
Certainly, it is our cultures which have generally warned men against enjoying "cute", more than human biology. I know plenty of guys who love "cute". It's a human thing, not just a female thing. And in the evolution of a species, it would be more advantageous if every mature, capable individual, was willing to protect and nurture the young. And yet, with the constraints of culture, men tend to only feel free to use the word "cute", in terms of a female they find attractive. This seems to be in keeping with the use of "cute" to express a feeling of protectiveness. Perhaps this schism in society allowing the genders to express affinity for "cute" is based upon attempts for distinction between the genders. Studies have shown that ovulating women prefer more masculine faces. So perhaps it's biology that society has taken a little too far. But if it furthers procreation, which also helps with perpetuation of a species, I guess the survival instinct has let that slide. Still, having all members of a species willing to protect the young, is waaaay more important to species survival. I think that takes precedence over instincts developed for procreation. So I have personally concluded that males and females both have strong affinity for "cute", but the males tend to be constrained by human society to express those feelings.
Look at Japan, for instance. So much of the aesthetic for inanimate objects, graphics, and even utilitarian objects openly adhere to "cute". For example, when Crash Bandicoot was ported to Japan, they had to re-design him with no teeth...like a baby. Cute is more prevalent in current-day Japan. Men there even seem more free to call things "cute", even unrelated to an attractive girl. (At least, that's what I've observed from live-action writing and videos.) Part of this could be attributed to the consumer power of teenage girls, driving most markets, with their love of "cute", as well as the expected use of their freedom to love cute. But I'd like to think that that marketing trend simply gave men the freedom to express affinities which were already there. It'd like to think *all* humans are capable of protectiveness, affection, and care.
Though---not to be sexist or anything, but---in terms of evolutionary survival, perhaps it is only really essential that females have a strong reaction to "cute". Females carry the babies and perpetuate the species. Because of that, I have heard many scientists in documentaries make the claim that, only the females are really important, in terms of biological survival of a species. Even the rare species of lizard, made up entirely of clones, are all female. A species only really needs the ones who create the next generation. That's why women are built to live longer: From our larger fat stores (women have a higher proportion of fat to muscle, compared to men) to our double X chromosomes (always have a back-up copy for any gene, in case of flaws). Women have biologically developed to live longer, to increase chances of perpetuating the species. To that end, it could be much more essential to the species that females especially have an affinity for "cute". A greater emotional reaction of protectiveness, attention, and care, better ensures that the babies, carrying on the species, have an increased chance for survival---not just in terms of mortal protection, but also in nurturing development to grow a stronger species. Sure, it's great if all humans have a strong protectiveness over "cute", but if someone has to go, males are usually expendable. (Sorry. The scientists in the documentaries I watch, said it first.)
So what exactly are the "cute" traits which evoke the identification of babies for humans?
1) Large eyes.
Humans eyes do not really grow over the course of development. Babies are born with adult-sized eyes, and their bodies grow around them. Therefore, the eyes of human babies are proportionally larger, relative to their heads/bodies.
2) Large head, small body.
SD (super-deformed) and chibi character designs take their cues from the developmental proportions of babies as well. Humans have some of the largest brains in proportion to our bodies. Big brains, mean big skulls, which mean, big heads. The rest of the body's development can catch up later. But from the very beginning, humans start with large brains. It's our head-start before the other species.
3) Pastel color.
This is just a personal conjecture of mine. But perhaps this relates to babies' skin. When compared to mature, human adults, babies do not have a build up of dead or dying, outer layers of dull skin, for protection. Babies are born pink, or pale, relative to their mature skin pigmentation. And pale generally equates to pastel.
4) Un-coordination.
I once saw an elephant documentary where the baby tried to manipulate objects with its trunk, that gripped and flopped around like a wet noodle. I couldn't get enough of it. ^.^ Babies have less developed muscles. Even the herd animals, like antelope and deer, that walk minutes after being born, wobble when they first get up. And that moment always seems adorable for some reason. Human babies have such undeveloped muscles at birth, that it takes some time before they are able to even squirm around or roll over. This may be one of the most helpless traits of young, and predictably evoke the most affection for cuteness.
5) Small size.
In keeping with the traits of babies, small things are often equated as being "cute". I don't think I have to explain babies being born small. Immediately recognizing diminutive things as being baby-like is advantageous. It increases a the young's chances for survival to immediately evoke protectiveness and attention. And with the species' survival as a whole also riding on this immediate recognition, it's advantageous to evolve adults with reflexive emotions towards something simply because it is small. After all, if a baby isnt' developed enough to do anything else to evoke affection or advertise it needs protection, it can at least be small.
6) Roundness.
A round mochi is cuter than a cube of the same size and color. Sorry, Tofu Records. But I will say that your mascot plushie did manage to round it's edges/corners, simply by being a soft plushie. Can it be that babies are born without sharp edges because it would harm the mother during gestation and birth? Very possible. While infant animals will generally not have horns (or other sharp body parts) until maturity, that is more a question of the time to develop those parts. A baby bird, on the other hand, will not only be born with an angular beak, but even a little "egg tooth" to break free of it's shell. But human babies are soft and round all over. So to humans, round is "cute".
7) Simplicity.
This may have less to do with human babies and more with human psychology. At a convention panel, examining manga, the panelist noted that the human mind has more freedom to "fill in the blanks" with whatever they wish for most, when the space/design is not constrained by realistic details. Heroes are drawn with simple faces, while villains have more realistic facial features, he noted. Much in the same way that a blank, Shoujo manga panel allows the reader to feel the intended emotion, more than hear some words or see a specific image from the manga-ka. Or how an anime director will turn the camera away/off before the climactic moment everything has built towards. (See the end of the Lucky Star anime, or the quick cuts away at the end of Kingdom Hearts games.) When the moment is in your head, it becomes everything you expected and hope for, with the advantage of having every personal inflection of each individual watching the experience---because it happens in each person's head, rather than on screen. Emotions are more strongly evoked through implication, by way of simplicity's enticement to fill-in-the-blanks. And "cute" is about emotional reaction.
8) Faces.
Eyes and mouth. Humans will see that in anything with 2 dots and a line slightly lower, between them. Humans are egocentric. And it is an evolutionary advantage for us to be so. (This, I remember Scott McCloud writing about.) As social animals, it is important that we become highly proficient in our main means for social interaction. In contrast to other social animals, like bees or dogs, humans have abandoned scent. One of the primary forms of communication which humans must recognize are facial expressions. Humans must immediately recognize faces, to immediately start their familiarization with learning its intricacies. This is why babies are born, recognizing faces, and why autistic people have so much trouble fitting into a society, built primarily for communication through facial expressions. Humans must become proficient with faces. Humans interested in faces gain an advantage. Therefore, humans have probably developed an instinctual affinity for faces.
9) Anthropomorphism.
Gijinka cosplay, talking animals in cartoons, and little cakes with smiling faces...
This is the same egocentricity as human's instinctual affinity for faces. The same biological advantages too. Humans identify with other humans. Humans *must* be interested in other humans to survive or thrive in such a social species. We empathize with things for the same reason. When our pets imitate human behaviors, it's called "cute". It is advantageous for their survival as well. We find affinity for and share companionship with people of similar interests; we build bonds with people we identify with. And those people who built emotional bonds with us, are more likely to survive with our help. It is survival instinct to participate in this dialogue of identification.
But it also speaks to one of the fundamentals of human psychological development. The infant mind begins as egocentric, knowing nothing but one's self. After the "terrible twos" resolve coming to terms with acknowledging others in addition to one's self, humans begin to try to relate to each other. This is the origin of societies, from social creatures, who have emotions. The emotions are necessary for mutual advantage through cooperation, because emotions allow humans to understand others. As children develop, they try to understand others, by considering how they themselves would feel in the same situations. Identification with others outside ourselves, as well as projecting that identification onto those others outside ourselves, is a fundamental development of the human species.
We like seeing things which are not human, take on human traits. Personification and anthropomorphism is adorably "cute".
10) Child-like.
All the other traits I've mentioned, speak of the visual or biological cues of infancy, but when I say "child-like", the emphasis is more on personality traits. This can be anything from "childishness" to "innocence". It's all subjective, because what different people imagine "child-like" to equate, is dependent on too many individual variants, experiences, and points of view. But evoking an affinity towards the young, once again, still speaks to our survival instinct for our species. Ask any fangirl of America from Hetalia. The fandom has created this image of him which is genki, impulsive, pouts, bratty, loves candy, goofs off, plays games, and is earnestly honest, in an innocent sort of way. And those same fangirls contrast that image, with a mature, parental image of England. Fangirls like a childish character, for the same reason the biological instinct in a mother finds children adorable. Maybe even the same way that girlfriends laugh-off "boy's immaturity" with a smile. Child-like is "cute".
Well, I've laid down the basic theory. Cute is the evocation of baby cues, and protective feelings. It is advantageous and thus, survival instinct. I would love to draw an example demonstrating the theories, and a contrasting opposite of all those traits listed, but I'm really thrashed, staying up this late. I need Tylenol. x~x And maybe it would be more interesting to see lots of different people's ideas of what was the opposite of all those cute traits. ^^?
Thursday, February 16, 2012
my 1st try at Left 4 Dead
First, fan-art:
http://mysticdragon3.deviantart.com/art/tails-1-animated-gif-285517252
Last night, I tried Valve's "Left 4 Dead" for the first time. And it was surprisingly fun. 0.0!
I was visiting my brother, and it turned out that he found the game on sale, with all the downloadable content, already included on disk. It was a little unusual that he bought it, because he doesn't play first-person shooters.
It was a little unusual for me too. A lot, actually. I *especially* don't play first-person shooters. A little too intense for me. I can barely handle _3rd-person_ horror-survival games. I can't get past the intro for the first "Dead Space", and after just 5 minutes of "Resident Evil: Code Veronica", I just had to stop the disk. #~___~#;;; I tried some "Halo" once before, and one of the "Call of Duty: Modern Warefare" games. But that was because I was desperate to do anything besides all that overly-personal, girly chit-chat that the other girls at the party wanted to do. I can't exactly say that FPS (first-person shooter) games are counter-intuitive for me, but for someone who plays almost nothing but 2-D fighting games and hack-n-slash games, I was getting too confused with the interface to really have fun. ;_;
Not so with "Left 4 Dead". ^_^ Even though I expected the same awkwardness that I usually have with FPSes, "Left 4 Dead" was just sooooooo intuitive. Partially because I was used to playing Tenchu and overly-using the targetting viewer. And partially because Kingdom Hearts had gotten me used to analog sticks for POV control---and that took me *forever* to get the hang of. Perhaps this type of control scheme is a popular trend that Valve was smart to pick up on. (I reeeally don't play enough FPSes to know...~_~; ) Whatever the reason, such intuitive play controls lessened the bite of that annoying acclimation time that usually makes games utterly unenjoyable for me, if it weren't for my stubbornness to get through it. I'm still getting accustomed to FPS and "Left 4 Dead", so it was really surprising that by the end of the night, my brother and I had finished an entire mission. O_O! That never happens so easily for us! I had no idea we could do that in such an open game, without strategy guides, FAQs, or knowing what the heck we were doing. It gave a sense of accomplishment that makes playing the game again, less intimidating. And not only did it give confidence in the game being rewarding with the next try, but it also built *my* confidence against those horror games. ^_^ It reminded me of that exhilerating, empowered feeling from playing the first Devil May Cry. I had always heard from people, watched documentaries, and seen Valve's craftsmanship in cutscenes, as well as in-game clips, but now I can finally see first-hand why Valve is proclaimed as one of the great game publishers/studios.
So how did the "No Mercy" mission with my brother end? Right when the helicopter was about to rescue us from the zombies, that huge Tank enemy punched me off the roof. x_x;;; Ironic and hilarious. But not as entertaining as the "in memory of md3" line right before the end credits. ^u^ Oh, Valve!
http://mysticdragon3.deviantart.com/art/tails-1-animated-gif-285517252
Last night, I tried Valve's "Left 4 Dead" for the first time. And it was surprisingly fun. 0.0!
I was visiting my brother, and it turned out that he found the game on sale, with all the downloadable content, already included on disk. It was a little unusual that he bought it, because he doesn't play first-person shooters.
It was a little unusual for me too. A lot, actually. I *especially* don't play first-person shooters. A little too intense for me. I can barely handle _3rd-person_ horror-survival games. I can't get past the intro for the first "Dead Space", and after just 5 minutes of "Resident Evil: Code Veronica", I just had to stop the disk. #~___~#;;; I tried some "Halo" once before, and one of the "Call of Duty: Modern Warefare" games. But that was because I was desperate to do anything besides all that overly-personal, girly chit-chat that the other girls at the party wanted to do. I can't exactly say that FPS (first-person shooter) games are counter-intuitive for me, but for someone who plays almost nothing but 2-D fighting games and hack-n-slash games, I was getting too confused with the interface to really have fun. ;_;
Not so with "Left 4 Dead". ^_^ Even though I expected the same awkwardness that I usually have with FPSes, "Left 4 Dead" was just sooooooo intuitive. Partially because I was used to playing Tenchu and overly-using the targetting viewer. And partially because Kingdom Hearts had gotten me used to analog sticks for POV control---and that took me *forever* to get the hang of. Perhaps this type of control scheme is a popular trend that Valve was smart to pick up on. (I reeeally don't play enough FPSes to know...~_~; ) Whatever the reason, such intuitive play controls lessened the bite of that annoying acclimation time that usually makes games utterly unenjoyable for me, if it weren't for my stubbornness to get through it. I'm still getting accustomed to FPS and "Left 4 Dead", so it was really surprising that by the end of the night, my brother and I had finished an entire mission. O_O! That never happens so easily for us! I had no idea we could do that in such an open game, without strategy guides, FAQs, or knowing what the heck we were doing. It gave a sense of accomplishment that makes playing the game again, less intimidating. And not only did it give confidence in the game being rewarding with the next try, but it also built *my* confidence against those horror games. ^_^ It reminded me of that exhilerating, empowered feeling from playing the first Devil May Cry. I had always heard from people, watched documentaries, and seen Valve's craftsmanship in cutscenes, as well as in-game clips, but now I can finally see first-hand why Valve is proclaimed as one of the great game publishers/studios.
So how did the "No Mercy" mission with my brother end? Right when the helicopter was about to rescue us from the zombies, that huge Tank enemy punched me off the roof. x_x;;; Ironic and hilarious. But not as entertaining as the "in memory of md3" line right before the end credits. ^u^ Oh, Valve!
Friday, February 10, 2012
Final Fantasy X remaster
First, today's fanart:
http://mysticdragon3.deviantart.com/art/bounce-and-tsundere-284398084
I just heard about the "remake" of Final Fantasy X for the PS3, being revealed as simply a graphic remastering. Everyone commenting on CleverGames's report on YouTube seems pretty unanimous about how perfect FFX already was and how nothing else but a graphical remaster is all the game needs. But if I could have my wish, there's only one thing I'd want added to the game, even more than a graphic remaster. If the Remaster of FFX adds an option to choose Japanese dialogue with English text, then I'm buying.
I still can't believe Square was able to go bilingual with "The Bouncer", and even all the .Hack// games were able to provide that option, yet Final Fantasy, with their large, overseas, otaku fanbase, just doesn't even try. Even if the manga/anime bubble in North America has already burst, the anime fans here still have a great appreciation of Japanese voice acting. And if anime convention cosplay is any indication, a lot of the Final Fantasy fans are part of the anime fandom. I think all the FF fans would love to have a bilingual option. Personally, I love to switch between the languages, to keep the experience of an anime fresh...throughout re-watching the same anime every day. I would love to do the same with a Final Fantasy game. If Kingdom Hearts did that, I may be replaying those games more frequently now too. Ah, to have bilingual games...*__________*
The dub acting was the only thing keeping me from getting the original FFX game. I really thought that FFX would be the game to finally make me like turn-based gameplay---and I was really willing to do it for FFX's story---but I just couldn't get over the English voice acting. ~_~; After listening to all the Japanese cutscenes, I cried for 20 minutes straight. So listening to the English dub, after that, was a real disappointment. Masakazu Morita and Mayuko Aoki are awesome! *u* So were Rikku, Auron, and just everyone! *-*! Maybe I just have too much attachment to the seiyuu. ^^; But after listening to scenes like when Tidus got caught listening at Yuna's door, I just can't help but objectively cite Morita's voice acting as just much skillful...full range of Tidus's character...and flowing smoothly between it all. I really would rather hear the Japanese seiyuu to enhance my gaming experience. Or rather, I really think that listening to the English voice acting, throughout an entire game, would diminish my gaming experience. ~_~; Sorry. But dubbing for Japanese video games just wasn't very good back then.
As things stand now, I have to either learn Japanese or buy Region 2 game systems and game disks. >.<;! With my memory, I doubt I'll ever become fluent enough in Japanese to move as fast-paced as videogame play. Even if FFX isn't real-time combat (which is one of the reasons I thought I could try it). Right now, I read Japanese like a preschooler. x_x; I've been listening to Tagalog all my life, and I still can't speak it. x~x; So, you can see where my expectations lie. And this whole region-coding thing just pisses me off. Maybe in much the same way that console exclusivity used to. Buying a whole system _overseas_, for just one (or 2) games, is just more wasteful with money than I'd like to be---or *can* be. Especially with my bilingual skills, the way they are now. ~___~ So I guess the only thing I can do now, is keep watching Japanese cutscenes online. There are still some games I'd like to buy, despite having watched all the cutscenes (I suppose it's the same was re-watching the same anime DVD or re-reading the same manga volumes, as I'm apt to do, even more so than my geek's obsessive collecting).
Even though the English dub acting is getting better, by the time of FFXIII, as an otaku, I still really want to hear the Japanese voice acting (even if I'm going to switch between languages, while playing the game several times).
http://mysticdragon3.deviantart.com/art/bounce-and-tsundere-284398084
I just heard about the "remake" of Final Fantasy X for the PS3, being revealed as simply a graphic remastering. Everyone commenting on CleverGames's report on YouTube seems pretty unanimous about how perfect FFX already was and how nothing else but a graphical remaster is all the game needs. But if I could have my wish, there's only one thing I'd want added to the game, even more than a graphic remaster. If the Remaster of FFX adds an option to choose Japanese dialogue with English text, then I'm buying.
I still can't believe Square was able to go bilingual with "The Bouncer", and even all the .Hack// games were able to provide that option, yet Final Fantasy, with their large, overseas, otaku fanbase, just doesn't even try. Even if the manga/anime bubble in North America has already burst, the anime fans here still have a great appreciation of Japanese voice acting. And if anime convention cosplay is any indication, a lot of the Final Fantasy fans are part of the anime fandom. I think all the FF fans would love to have a bilingual option. Personally, I love to switch between the languages, to keep the experience of an anime fresh...throughout re-watching the same anime every day. I would love to do the same with a Final Fantasy game. If Kingdom Hearts did that, I may be replaying those games more frequently now too. Ah, to have bilingual games...*__________*
The dub acting was the only thing keeping me from getting the original FFX game. I really thought that FFX would be the game to finally make me like turn-based gameplay---and I was really willing to do it for FFX's story---but I just couldn't get over the English voice acting. ~_~; After listening to all the Japanese cutscenes, I cried for 20 minutes straight. So listening to the English dub, after that, was a real disappointment. Masakazu Morita and Mayuko Aoki are awesome! *u* So were Rikku, Auron, and just everyone! *-*! Maybe I just have too much attachment to the seiyuu. ^^; But after listening to scenes like when Tidus got caught listening at Yuna's door, I just can't help but objectively cite Morita's voice acting as just much skillful...full range of Tidus's character...and flowing smoothly between it all. I really would rather hear the Japanese seiyuu to enhance my gaming experience. Or rather, I really think that listening to the English voice acting, throughout an entire game, would diminish my gaming experience. ~_~; Sorry. But dubbing for Japanese video games just wasn't very good back then.
As things stand now, I have to either learn Japanese or buy Region 2 game systems and game disks. >.<;! With my memory, I doubt I'll ever become fluent enough in Japanese to move as fast-paced as videogame play. Even if FFX isn't real-time combat (which is one of the reasons I thought I could try it). Right now, I read Japanese like a preschooler. x_x; I've been listening to Tagalog all my life, and I still can't speak it. x~x; So, you can see where my expectations lie. And this whole region-coding thing just pisses me off. Maybe in much the same way that console exclusivity used to. Buying a whole system _overseas_, for just one (or 2) games, is just more wasteful with money than I'd like to be---or *can* be. Especially with my bilingual skills, the way they are now. ~___~ So I guess the only thing I can do now, is keep watching Japanese cutscenes online. There are still some games I'd like to buy, despite having watched all the cutscenes (I suppose it's the same was re-watching the same anime DVD or re-reading the same manga volumes, as I'm apt to do, even more so than my geek's obsessive collecting).
Even though the English dub acting is getting better, by the time of FFXIII, as an otaku, I still really want to hear the Japanese voice acting (even if I'm going to switch between languages, while playing the game several times).
Saturday, February 4, 2012
sexist damsel in distress cliche
First, some fan-art. My first quick sketch of Hetalia's America and England.
http://mysticdragon3.deviantart.com/art/my-1st-USUK-sketch-283368529
original journal entry from 9:04 AM 4/11/2011 modified on 10:48 PM 2/4/2012
Over the weekend, I was surprised to read in my old journals, an irritated comment about the "sexist cliche" of the "helpless female character with mysterious powers, that everyone is after", in reference to Zoids. But it could also be applied to Elemental Gelade, Rave Master, Scrapped Princess, Tokyo Underground, Revolutionary Girl Utena, Eureka 7, and even Kingdom Hearts I.
This was a surprise, because, by this time, I am so enamoured with mythic motifs, that I no longer see this cliche as sexist. For the longest time now, I see it, and get excited about the reference to mythic motifs and Universal Mother Goddess figures. *Of course*, she's a helpless female being pursued by everyone because of her mysterious powers! So is the Earth itself! The Earth is a passive thing we all have to protect by recognizing as a living thing, rather than just a set of desireable resources and mysterious powers to pillage for our own gains. But more than that, that same type of respect for all things/beings is a path to being a more psychologially sound human being.
By now, whenever I hear comments from other girls about how sexist this "helpless-myserious girl" motif is, I feel a little sad that they're not aware of the truer, mythic meaning. But after seeing that I had the same views, before my introduction to Joseph Campbell, I have to consider that maybe this motif still is a little sexist.
I mean, just because females are the traditional and more instinctual symbol of life and Earth, doesn't mean it's the only symbol to convey the same ideas. There has to be examples of humans' relation to earth/life, that isn't in danger of chauvinist undertones. The Third comes to mind. That series had a character with all the mysterious and passive traits, usually associated with Universal Mother Goddess figures, but in a male character (Iks).
The other interesting thing with that series, was that the main character, playing opposite to the Universal Mother Goddess figure, was already highly in tune with respecting nature and all life, as neither good nor bad. Usually, the point of the Hero/goddess myth is to teach people to develop that type of sensitivity/respect towards the earth/life, by watching a hero _develop_ it. But Sword-dancer already had it. Then again, Renton in Eureka 7 already had a sensitivity to the "mysterious power" (machines, omnita drive, lifting waves, etc.) at the beginning of the story too. In fact, it separated him from the usual inhabitants of the world, differentiating him as a Hero, and ready to accept/accompany the Goddess (Eureka) when she appeared. I think even the Hero of Zoids was unusually sensitive towards his zoid (mysterious power) from the beginning of the series. So, it may be a faultering of my memory to say that a story must demonstrate the development of respect for the Goddess/earth, through a Hero who starts without that respect, then grows into it.
But the truth of the matter is that there are many more Hero/Goddess series with "sexist" undertones, than series like The Third (or even Utena, to some extent). It simply can't be denied that there are a set of cues which are more successful because they more closely reflect some primal subconscous, some more instinctual symbolic language. Which is to say that it is easier for the intended themes to be conveyed through a Universal Mother Goddess figure who needs constant protection from the (male) Hero and is pursued for her power. Rather than some more roundabout, less natural, symbolic portrayal. And it couldn't be more natural than to understand the symbol of "female" as a representation of life, or something which one desires to protect: All humans are born to a female mother. The connection between symbols and meaning are hard-wired into our brains, and if not our own, then at least our species' millions of years' worth of biological instinct.
Yet, even if the symbol of a female key to power, in need of protection, is the most effective or most natural symbol for the themes of respecting life, there is a way to portray it without being sexist against women. It is not only possible, but also necessary in our evolving culture and current world, where eliminating sexism is highly valued. If a myth/story doesn't evolve to reflect that local value, then it won't be able to be successful for our time. And there are pleasant signs that the Universal Mother Goddess is evolving to fit our times.
Code Geass, for example, has a Goddess representation which does not need or ask for protection by the Hero. Neither is she meek nor frail. C.C. is competent, commanding, powerful, intelligent, mature, and apparently studied in martial arts. Rather than being physically protected by the Hero Lelouch, she is protected emotionally. Which actually conveys the important themes more directly; unfortunately, themes are more effective on the human mind, when conveyed through the emotions, via indirect symbols (to become an experience, rather than just words). So it's amazing that Code Geass was able to do this effectively.
But part of the reason for Code Geass's success, is that it was effective on a storyteller level. In the technichal aspect of storytelling/writing, is is necessary to establish empathy for main characters. Code Geass achieves this through appealing to local, current values, such as Strong women. This may be why they were able to get away with veering from the usual cliche of the "passive, frail, meek" Universal Mother Goddess. Her passivity in most, past anime, is usually used as positive traits to develop empathy towards her character: humility, purity, kindness, goodness, etc. But in our current world, that would merely be disregarded as a "sexist portrayal of womenn as weak". C.C., on the other hand, avoided that pitfall and used another route to portray a sympathizable character: Strength/admiration.
Despite all of C.C.'s Strengths and independence, she still had failings which were answered by the Hero. She was emotionally detatched, cared little for her own survival, and really was in need of a Hero to save her. Yet, she did not ask to be saved...Because she didn't realilze she needed to be saved. (This ignorance seemed to also help her appeal to the local/current value of Strength in females, because it allowed her to maintain an independent demeanor.) When the Hero of Code Geass, Lelouch, did save her in the end, by reviving her ability to "experience living, rather than just survival", even code Geass's Hero/Goddess dynamic was able to achieve the same themes as the usual, past, cliche portrayals of this same dynamic.
So it seems that mythic anime is evolving to fit our times. Many older anime may be looked upon now, by our culture, as sexist with its meek Universal Mother Goddesses, but that simply means those old series are obsolete to our times. There are even anime from that past era, which were not applicable to that time, but are seen as appealing to the current ideal of empowering women. Like many old martial arts anime, with female fighters. And perhaps there are unpopular anime now, which will appeal better to the next generation's evolution in our culture, while our favorites become obsolete or "offensive" in some way. The culture's values may even evolve back towards old values, then cycle back to our values, then the next, again. So even if an old anime may have some slightly offensive aspects that reflected the currently obsolete values, of an older state of culture, I think it's more enjoyable to just ask, "Is the series fun (for me)?"
http://mysticdragon3.deviantart.com/art/my-1st-USUK-sketch-283368529
original journal entry from 9:04 AM 4/11/2011 modified on 10:48 PM 2/4/2012
Over the weekend, I was surprised to read in my old journals, an irritated comment about the "sexist cliche" of the "helpless female character with mysterious powers, that everyone is after", in reference to Zoids. But it could also be applied to Elemental Gelade, Rave Master, Scrapped Princess, Tokyo Underground, Revolutionary Girl Utena, Eureka 7, and even Kingdom Hearts I.
This was a surprise, because, by this time, I am so enamoured with mythic motifs, that I no longer see this cliche as sexist. For the longest time now, I see it, and get excited about the reference to mythic motifs and Universal Mother Goddess figures. *Of course*, she's a helpless female being pursued by everyone because of her mysterious powers! So is the Earth itself! The Earth is a passive thing we all have to protect by recognizing as a living thing, rather than just a set of desireable resources and mysterious powers to pillage for our own gains. But more than that, that same type of respect for all things/beings is a path to being a more psychologially sound human being.
By now, whenever I hear comments from other girls about how sexist this "helpless-myserious girl" motif is, I feel a little sad that they're not aware of the truer, mythic meaning. But after seeing that I had the same views, before my introduction to Joseph Campbell, I have to consider that maybe this motif still is a little sexist.
I mean, just because females are the traditional and more instinctual symbol of life and Earth, doesn't mean it's the only symbol to convey the same ideas. There has to be examples of humans' relation to earth/life, that isn't in danger of chauvinist undertones. The Third comes to mind. That series had a character with all the mysterious and passive traits, usually associated with Universal Mother Goddess figures, but in a male character (Iks).
The other interesting thing with that series, was that the main character, playing opposite to the Universal Mother Goddess figure, was already highly in tune with respecting nature and all life, as neither good nor bad. Usually, the point of the Hero/goddess myth is to teach people to develop that type of sensitivity/respect towards the earth/life, by watching a hero _develop_ it. But Sword-dancer already had it. Then again, Renton in Eureka 7 already had a sensitivity to the "mysterious power" (machines, omnita drive, lifting waves, etc.) at the beginning of the story too. In fact, it separated him from the usual inhabitants of the world, differentiating him as a Hero, and ready to accept/accompany the Goddess (Eureka) when she appeared. I think even the Hero of Zoids was unusually sensitive towards his zoid (mysterious power) from the beginning of the series. So, it may be a faultering of my memory to say that a story must demonstrate the development of respect for the Goddess/earth, through a Hero who starts without that respect, then grows into it.
But the truth of the matter is that there are many more Hero/Goddess series with "sexist" undertones, than series like The Third (or even Utena, to some extent). It simply can't be denied that there are a set of cues which are more successful because they more closely reflect some primal subconscous, some more instinctual symbolic language. Which is to say that it is easier for the intended themes to be conveyed through a Universal Mother Goddess figure who needs constant protection from the (male) Hero and is pursued for her power. Rather than some more roundabout, less natural, symbolic portrayal. And it couldn't be more natural than to understand the symbol of "female" as a representation of life, or something which one desires to protect: All humans are born to a female mother. The connection between symbols and meaning are hard-wired into our brains, and if not our own, then at least our species' millions of years' worth of biological instinct.
Yet, even if the symbol of a female key to power, in need of protection, is the most effective or most natural symbol for the themes of respecting life, there is a way to portray it without being sexist against women. It is not only possible, but also necessary in our evolving culture and current world, where eliminating sexism is highly valued. If a myth/story doesn't evolve to reflect that local value, then it won't be able to be successful for our time. And there are pleasant signs that the Universal Mother Goddess is evolving to fit our times.
Code Geass, for example, has a Goddess representation which does not need or ask for protection by the Hero. Neither is she meek nor frail. C.C. is competent, commanding, powerful, intelligent, mature, and apparently studied in martial arts. Rather than being physically protected by the Hero Lelouch, she is protected emotionally. Which actually conveys the important themes more directly; unfortunately, themes are more effective on the human mind, when conveyed through the emotions, via indirect symbols (to become an experience, rather than just words). So it's amazing that Code Geass was able to do this effectively.
But part of the reason for Code Geass's success, is that it was effective on a storyteller level. In the technichal aspect of storytelling/writing, is is necessary to establish empathy for main characters. Code Geass achieves this through appealing to local, current values, such as Strong women. This may be why they were able to get away with veering from the usual cliche of the "passive, frail, meek" Universal Mother Goddess. Her passivity in most, past anime, is usually used as positive traits to develop empathy towards her character: humility, purity, kindness, goodness, etc. But in our current world, that would merely be disregarded as a "sexist portrayal of womenn as weak". C.C., on the other hand, avoided that pitfall and used another route to portray a sympathizable character: Strength/admiration.
Despite all of C.C.'s Strengths and independence, she still had failings which were answered by the Hero. She was emotionally detatched, cared little for her own survival, and really was in need of a Hero to save her. Yet, she did not ask to be saved...Because she didn't realilze she needed to be saved. (This ignorance seemed to also help her appeal to the local/current value of Strength in females, because it allowed her to maintain an independent demeanor.) When the Hero of Code Geass, Lelouch, did save her in the end, by reviving her ability to "experience living, rather than just survival", even code Geass's Hero/Goddess dynamic was able to achieve the same themes as the usual, past, cliche portrayals of this same dynamic.
So it seems that mythic anime is evolving to fit our times. Many older anime may be looked upon now, by our culture, as sexist with its meek Universal Mother Goddesses, but that simply means those old series are obsolete to our times. There are even anime from that past era, which were not applicable to that time, but are seen as appealing to the current ideal of empowering women. Like many old martial arts anime, with female fighters. And perhaps there are unpopular anime now, which will appeal better to the next generation's evolution in our culture, while our favorites become obsolete or "offensive" in some way. The culture's values may even evolve back towards old values, then cycle back to our values, then the next, again. So even if an old anime may have some slightly offensive aspects that reflected the currently obsolete values, of an older state of culture, I think it's more enjoyable to just ask, "Is the series fun (for me)?"
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
C.C./Lelouch, a flexible bias with the Universal Mother Goddess
First, today's fanart is of Iggycat and Americat as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson:
http://mysticdragon3.deviantart.com/art/Sher-mao-Holmes-and-Dr-Wat-nyan-282816910
I don't have time today, to write up a whole new essay, analyzing anime/manga/mythology/Jung, so I dug up an old one. The following is an edit of my jounal file from:
4:31 PM 4/14/2011
I always thought that, despite my Lelouch/C.C. bias, it wasn't really important that the series end up advocating that bias as the definitive cannon. At first, I thought that I was too old and tired to take up the "bias wars" online (and now at cons) again. But it may not be or may be just a portion of that. Because C.C. is a Universal Mother Goddess figure, the point of the Hero's Journey is to recogize/respect her feelings as a person, just as humans are to respect the Earth like a living thing, or how Individualized beings are to live life with that type of heightened respect for everyone's feelings. It wasn't important if Lelouch loved C.C. back. It was only important that C.C. decided to "stop accumulating experience and start Living". If the Lelouch/C.C. bias had any meaning, it was merely as a specific point to exemplify all the emotions progressing towards C.C.'s own decision to recognize herself as a being with feelings/emotions and worth respect (towards that capacity for emotions), by accepting Lelouch's example.
So, in the end, rather than the Hero defining himself by insisting on respecting the Goddess's emotions, through a process, it is the Goddess who makes that journey in Code Geass. Lelouch respected C.C. as a person, rather than regarding her as a thing, from the beginning---even more than she did. (Though he did call her a "Monster" in the first episode. That classification is an important Goddess motif, but even as Lelouch said that, he was still treating her as a living person with his actions.) Rather than the story expressing the ideal of respecting the Goddess's feelings, through a main character who begins without such respect, then changes to gain that respect, (as in most plot progressions in technichally crafted, creative writing), it seems that Code Geass, as with most myths _begins_ with a Hero who already holds that sensibility. And thus, such mythic Heroes serve more often as the "Catalyst" type of Hero, who changes the world around them, but does not go through much drastic change in their core personality themselves.
http://mysticdragon3.deviantart.com/art/Sher-mao-Holmes-and-Dr-Wat-nyan-282816910
I don't have time today, to write up a whole new essay, analyzing anime/manga/mythology/Jung, so I dug up an old one. The following is an edit of my jounal file from:
4:31 PM 4/14/2011
I always thought that, despite my Lelouch/C.C. bias, it wasn't really important that the series end up advocating that bias as the definitive cannon. At first, I thought that I was too old and tired to take up the "bias wars" online (and now at cons) again. But it may not be or may be just a portion of that. Because C.C. is a Universal Mother Goddess figure, the point of the Hero's Journey is to recogize/respect her feelings as a person, just as humans are to respect the Earth like a living thing, or how Individualized beings are to live life with that type of heightened respect for everyone's feelings. It wasn't important if Lelouch loved C.C. back. It was only important that C.C. decided to "stop accumulating experience and start Living". If the Lelouch/C.C. bias had any meaning, it was merely as a specific point to exemplify all the emotions progressing towards C.C.'s own decision to recognize herself as a being with feelings/emotions and worth respect (towards that capacity for emotions), by accepting Lelouch's example.
So, in the end, rather than the Hero defining himself by insisting on respecting the Goddess's emotions, through a process, it is the Goddess who makes that journey in Code Geass. Lelouch respected C.C. as a person, rather than regarding her as a thing, from the beginning---even more than she did. (Though he did call her a "Monster" in the first episode. That classification is an important Goddess motif, but even as Lelouch said that, he was still treating her as a living person with his actions.) Rather than the story expressing the ideal of respecting the Goddess's feelings, through a main character who begins without such respect, then changes to gain that respect, (as in most plot progressions in technichally crafted, creative writing), it seems that Code Geass, as with most myths _begins_ with a Hero who already holds that sensibility. And thus, such mythic Heroes serve more often as the "Catalyst" type of Hero, who changes the world around them, but does not go through much drastic change in their core personality themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)