Anime, martials, expectations vs reality.

[Message board troll]

So can I dislike Anime or not?

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Would you please pay attention to what I actually write? It was like this the first time around with this thread as well; I'd assert N, then had to go through multiple iterations of "No, I don't mean X, I said N; no, I don't mean Y, I said N; no, I don't mean Z, I said N" before one or two people finally recognized that I was saying something different than all the XYZs that they're used to hearing. You're starting that process all over again, and it's getting old.

It's usually a pretty good rule that when multiple people are misunderstanding you, the failure in the conversation might not be completely on their side.

You're absolutely right. That's why I go back and re-read my posts after someone misunderstands me (and why I often quote myself verbatim in subsequent posts). And sometimes my next post explains how I communicated poorly. Or sometimes the other person explains how something I said could be taken a different way, and I acknowledge that.

But other times, I read what I wrote and what they say I wrote, and there's no reconciling the two. Like the time I said "Roleplaying is when your stats and your portrayal match" and the person I accused of not listening said "Of course I'm listening; you said you need to have high stats in order to roleplay!" Or when I've said "The best way to be a team player is to do something other than healing in combat" and they say "Stop making it all about yourself and think of the team!"

I fully agree that the first place to look after multiple misunderstandings is at one's own words. Sometimes the investigation finds that not to be the source. :/

[Nicos]

Sitll not seeing what's Jiggys point.

Relating the art style (like the one in avatar) with "be hadokens and sonic sword-slices and over-the-top craziness" is a pretty reasonable thing to do. It will not always be right, of course, but so what?. pretty sure everyone make choices like that on several topics.

Have just see those Chinese movies like the one where jet lee defeat an entire army with his crazy over the top wuxia martial art techniques?, well "a story about young protagonists against a militaristic antagonist with a bit of action/combat" could catch my eyes but if it is in the style of the wuxia thing I will refuse to see it just because my dislikement of other movies of the same style. If for my refusing to see those kind of movies some person think I'm racist against chinesse people then that person is not thinking clearly.

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

Would you please pay attention to what I actually write? It was like this the first time around with this thread as well; I'd assert N, then had to go through multiple iterations of "No, I don't mean X, I said N; no, I don't mean Y, I said N; no, I don't mean Z, I said N" before one or two people finally recognized that I was saying something different than all the XYZs that they're used to hearing. You're starting that process all over again, and it's getting old.

Now, pay attention. You seem to be under the impression that I think the art style should be ignored, and if you draw any conclusions from it then you're racist/bad/whatever.

I did not say that.

Go back and re-read what I actually wrote. Here, I'll even re-post part of it for your convenience:
"What I'm talking about is if the viewer would actually like a story about young protagonists against a militaristic antagonist with a bit of action/combat, and probably would have picked it up based on that, except they noticed that the youths look "eastern" and are drawn in a particular style, causing the viewer to completely disregard the obvious message of the art and instead assume that it's going to be hadokens and sonic sword-slices and over-the-top craziness."

Here are some key differences between what I actually said and what you somehow managed to absorb:
• I talked about the person's rejection being based in part on the race of the characters, which you completely ignored. (Sure makes it easier to say "That's not racist" when you ignore the part about race, doesn't it?)
• My reference to the art style was not about factoring that into the overall message of the cover, but actually using the art style (and race) to draw conclusions in spite of the rest of the message of the cover. That is, their assumptions based on the art style (and race) contradict and overrule all other data they have about the work.

In short, I'm talking about when "hand-drawn Asians" is basically all they can see on the cover.

Now, can you rephrase back to me what my point is? Because I'm not going to invest in you any further unless you can demonstrate that you really read and absorbed what I wrote. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to demonstrate that whatever you might be about to disagree with is what I actually said.

I think it's the part where you shift from art style to just "hand-drawn asians". There's plenty of anime that's "young protagonists against a militaristic antagonist with a bit of action/combat" - but that combat is often over-the-top craziness. Sometimes not of course, but that's the anime stereotype.

It's not clear to me why you think the rejection is linked to race of the characters. Or why the other data contradicts the impression given by the style.

Given that the characters look eastern and are drawn in an anime style, I still don't see why it's unreasonable to think the whole work might be anime (or a western imitation). (And honestly, "look eastern" is by far the less significant of those to me.)

But maybe I'm still just to dumb to figure out what you're saying. Or maybe it's not as clear as you think it is.

[Jiggy]

Nicos wrote:

Sitll not seeing what's Jiggys point.

Relating the art style (like the one in avatar) with "be hadokens and sonic sword-slices and over-the-top craziness" is a pretty reasonable thing to do. It will not always be right, of course, but so what?. pretty sure everyone make choices like that on several topics.

Have just see those Chinese movies like the one where jet lee defeat an entire army with his crazy over the top wuxia martial art techniques?, well "a story about young protagonists against a militaristic antagonist with a bit of action/combat" could catch my eyes but if it is in the style of the wuxia thing I will refuse to see it just because my dislikement of other movies of the same style. If for my refusing to see those kind of movies some person think I'm racist against chinesse people then that person is not thinking clearly.

Here's another thing that I'm not saying: "Choosing not to watch a movie because it's the same style/genre as other movies you don't like".

I'm talking about making assumptions about the content based on things that don't actually indicate those things about the content.

It's okay to see an eastern art style on the box and assume that the movie is animated in that style. (It's even okay to pass it up if the art style itself is something you dislike.)

It's okay to see Asians on the box and assume there will be elements of eastern culture involved in some way.

It's okay to see photographic images on the box and assume the movie will be a live-action film.

It's okay to see Americans on the box and assume there will be elements of western culture involved in some way.

It's not okay to see Asians in an eastern drawing style on the box and conclude that it must be DBZ-style over-the-top ki-magic action even when the box art depicts something vastly different than that, just like it wouldn't be okay to see photographed Americans on the box art and conclude that it must be a John Wayne-style cowboy movie even when the box art depicts something else entirely.

I'm not talking about looking at everything the box art tells you and drawing reasonable conclusions based on the whole dataset you have available. I'm talking about disregarding a large part of what the box art tells you and drawing completely unreasonable conclusions based on the single element that you can't seem to see past.

Maybe the people currently reading don't do that, but I'm not saying they do. I'm just saying that there are plenty in this community who do, and that's what I'm talking about.

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

It's not clear to me why you think the rejection is linked to race of the characters. Or why the other data contradicts the impression given by the style.

It's not that I think that's what's going on with any particular person, it's that if that's what's going on with someone's rejection, then they're doing what I'm talking about. All other scenarios are outside the scope of my comments. It's not like every rejection of an Asian-styled work is bad. It's just that I'm only talking about the rejections that happen for certain reasons.

Quote:

Given that the characters look eastern and are drawn in an anime style, I still don't see why it's unreasonable to think the whole work might be anime (or a western imitation). (And honestly, "look eastern" is by far the less significant of those to me.)

I don't object to someone seeing anime-style art and thinking it might be anime; note that I haven't even really been using the term "anime" lately. I'm talking about when they see anime-style art and assume "flying ki-wizards who scream their attacks and hadoken mountains into next week DBZ-style". Again, that's like the difference between the viewer of a "photographed Americans" movie cover concluding "probably Hollywood" versus concluding "probably a John Wayne cowboy movie". The latter is the only part I take issue with.

If it looks like anime, sure, go ahead and assume it's anime. Just don't assume it's DBZ unless it looks like DBZ.

Quote:

But maybe I'm still just to dumb to figure out what you're saying. Or maybe it's not as clear as you think it is.

You had legitimate questions that I was happy to try to clarify, so I guess it must have been the latter.

Side note: I really prefer to stick to discreet actions (such as "not listening" rather than extrapolating character judgments (such as "too dumb". I think the conflating of the two (whether by the speaker or the listener) is the source of a lot of this community's problems. So let's just stick the assertion and denial of individual actions, and leave the whole-person labels out of it, okay?

[thejeff]

Maybe that's my disconnect. You're talking about one specific style of anime.

I think of Avatar as having quite a bit of over-the-top anime style action, just not to anything like the level of Dragonball. For the purposes of the "anime martials expectations" thing that this thread was originally about, there are certainly some pure martials who qualify. I'm thinking particularly of Azula's two friends in particular. Not breaking mountains or anything, but perfectly capable of beating up the setting's casters.

So when you say "the box art depicts something vastly different", I don't see that at all. The box art matched my impression from the art style. The show matched my impression from the box art.

I expected something with a lot of anime influence and I got it. Which is why I kept having trouble with your take on it. Because it made no sense at all to me.

[Jiggy]

Then it sounds like the impression you got from the box art isn't the type of impression I was talking about.

[kyrt-ryder]

Well, beating up the setting's mid power casters anyway. Without massively favorable circumstances I don't see them taking Bumi or the firelord. They'd seriously struggle against Azula.

[Nicos]

Jiggy wrote:

It's not okay to see Asians in an eastern drawing style on the box and conclude that it must be DBZ-style over-the-top ki-magic action even when the box art depicts something vastly different than that,

You are right in the sense it can easily be an incorrect assumption, just not a racist assumption I'd argue. (mind you, racism could be the source of the dislikement but it doesn't cover all the possibilities)

for the record, I saw Avatar art and I thought about anime-style combat and I got anime style combat. I saw the series in spanish and just later I noticed it was actually not made in japan or the like due to the credits I think, I would have not noticed otherwise).

[Sundakan]

Yeah, blocking the chi flow to Bumi's arms and legs doesn't matter a ton when he can rock slap you with a suggestive eyebrow raise.

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

Then it sounds like the impression you got from the box art isn't the type of impression I was talking about.

I still would argue that even the impression you're talking about is more likely just a stereotyped idea of anime than actual racism.

Except of course when you add on the asian looking characters bit, but it seems to me that pretty much stands on its own rather than adding to the art style.

If someone sees anime and thinks "DBZ" and isn't interested that's one thing.
If someone sees eastern looking characters and isn't interested, that's something else.
If they'd be perfectly happy with the anime-style as long as the characters didn't look eastern? I don't even think that happens. People perfectly happy with anime as long as the characters don't look asian? It's possible I guess.

[Sundakan]

To be fair, that was a BIG part of the appeal of Cowboy Bebop. It was "too western" for Japan, but kickstarted the anime boom over here because a lot of people were more comfortable with it.

Then Samurai Champloo (surprise, surprise) was way more popular in Japan than here, and even later Space Dandy was already predicted to be more popular here to the point that the English dub is actually the ORIGINAL for once.

Bebop

vs

Champloo

vs

Dandy, baby.

[kyrt-ryder]

Its funny because more than half of anime seems to make its characters look noneastern

[Jiggy]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Well, beating up the setting's mid power casters anyway. Without massively favorable circumstances I don't see them taking Bumi or the firelord. They'd seriously struggle against Azula.

Plus, referring to the "casters" on a Pathfinder forum, or even on the heels of a reference to DBZ, seriously overstates their power, and by extension the power of those who can nonmagically stand against them. Not only are the "martials" not leveling mountains, but neither are the "casters". Avatar's most powerful "casters" are still lagging behind many of the "martials" of the type of anime people tend to lump it in with.

So... yeah. The kinds of situations I've been talking about, where someone sees an Asian-style cartoon and assumes DBZ-style stuff... they're pretty damn far off. And even if we ended the conversation about what causes someone to make assumptions about things like Avatar, there's still the conversation about people who have seen a little bit of DBZ, Sailor Moon, and Digimon and think they have a general grasp of the entire animation industry of the eastern hemisphere.

[Jiggy]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Its funny because more than half of anime seems to make its characters look noneastern

A lot of anime sort of... "styles away" most of the non-skin-tone elements of racial heritage, eastern or otherwise.

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Then it sounds like the impression you got from the box art isn't the type of impression I was talking about.

I still would argue that even the impression you're talking about is more likely just a stereotyped idea of anime than actual racism.

Sometimes, yes. Other times, the fact that they believe it's from Japan has come up as a factor.

Quote:

If someone sees anime and thinks "DBZ" and isn't interested that's one thing.

If someone sees eastern looking characters and isn't interested, that's something else.

Then there's the two-step version, where they (1) see eastern looking cartoon characters and think "anime", then (2) think "anime" means "DBZ". And that's a whole 'nother thing itself.

Quote:

If they'd be perfectly happy with the anime-style as long as the characters didn't look eastern? I don't even think that happens. People perfectly happy with anime as long as the characters don't look asian? It's possible I guess.

Often the reasoning starts with "the show looks Asian", which (depending on the context of what brought up the conversation) might mean they're talking about the art style or it might mean they're talking about the Asian-inspired architecture/clothing of the setting, or both. Then, from whichever of those things made them think "this is Asian", they then conclude that it must be "anime" (because Asian animation is inherently anime, I guess?), and if it's "anime", then it must be DBZ-style craziness.

And when someone goes from "this cartoon looks Asian" to "must be like [one specific subgenre particularly from Japan]", I find that to be offensive. "Racist" might not be the right word, but it's a pretty nasty way of thinking about the world and its diversity.

[Krensky]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Its funny because more than half of anime seems to make its characters look noneastern

That's a common misconception by people in the West. In Japan the characters are usually seen as Eastern unless they have a Western name.

[Threeshades]

Round 1:
Wizard: I cast fly and take to the skies!
Fighter: I charge the nearest ogre and attack with my sword.

Round 2:
Wizard: I fly across the battlefield and drop a fireball into the ogres!
Fighter: I stand still and full attack the ogre with my sword.

Round 3
Wizard: I fly to a more advantageous position and mass Paralyze the ogres.
Fighter: I stand still and full attack the next ogre with my sword.

Round 4
Wizard: I disintegrate the last ogre.
Fighter. I stand still and full attack the next ogre... oh they're all dead already? OK.

I don't understand what is so difficult to get about the C-MD.

Yes you can flavor the attacks the fighter is making in all sorts of ways, but mechanically he's still standing still and full attacking with his sword.

This is why i like houserules like removing attacks of opportunity from combat maneuvers made without the feat investment, allowing called shots from Ultimate Combat and letting them be made in place of any weapon attack, rather than only a single one as a full-round action. So Martials have options.

Round 1
Fighter: I charge the ogre and swing at its leg. And AoO him when he tries to get up.

Round 2
Fighter: I jab my sword into the next ogre's face to open him up to the rest of my full attack.

Round 3
Fighter: I rip the club from the next ogre's hands and whack him with my sword.

Sounds a lot more interesting.

[Steve Geddes]

Mangling your post order a little for ease of reply...

Jiggy wrote:

It's not okay to see Asians in an eastern drawing style on the box and conclude that it must be DBZ-style over-the-top ki-magic action even when the box art depicts something vastly different than that, just like it wouldn't be okay to see photographed Americans on the box art and conclude that it must be a John Wayne-style cowboy movie even when the box art depicts something else entirely.

Maybe the people currently reading don't do that, but I'm not saying they do. I'm just saying that there are plenty in this community who do, and that's what I'm talking about.

I think I do this to a large extent. I'm going to claim that it is okay to prejudge erroneously in this way - in my case, I'm happy to concede that there's a high risk of error due to ignorance. I'm not aware of the differences between various kinds of 'asian animation styles' (I didn't even really know there were multiple styles until stumbling over threads like this. I've always just assumed that "Japanese animation is too over-the-top for my tastes").

Quote:

I'm not talking about looking at everything the box art tells you and drawing reasonable conclusions based on the whole dataset you have available. I'm talking about disregarding a large part of what the box art tells you and drawing completely unreasonable conclusions based on the single element that you can't seem to see past.

I think my 'whole dataset' is significantly smaller than the 'whole dataset' of an educated viewer who picks up the same cover.

I think it would be silly of me and become not-okay if I started arguing with people who are aware of the subtletie. Presumably that's the issue you'd have too?

[Bluenose]

Steve Geddes wrote:

I think I do this to a large extent. I'm going to claim that it is okay to prejudge erroneously in this way - in my case, I'm happy to concede that there's a high risk of error due to ignorance. I'm not aware of the differences between various kinds of 'asian animation styles' (I didn't even really know there were multiple styles until stumbling over threads like this. I've always just assumed that "Japanese animation is too over-the-top for my tastes").

Anime is just the medium, in which there's a lot of different genres. I recommend Moribito (I always recommend Moribito) for a well made 'anime warrior' series. Or Slayers, which is over the top comedy action. Or Ghost in the Shell, cyberpunk classic.

[kyrt-ryder]

Bluenose wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

I think I do this to a large extent. I'm going to claim that it is okay to prejudge erroneously in this way - in my case, I'm happy to concede that there's a high risk of error due to ignorance. I'm not aware of the differences between various kinds of 'asian animation styles' (I didn't even really know there were multiple styles until stumbling over threads like this. I've always just assumed that "Japanese animation is too over-the-top for my tastes").

Anime is just the medium, in which there's a lot of different genres. I recommend Moribito (I always recommend Moribito) for a well made 'anime warrior' series. Or Slayers, which is over the top comedy action. Or Ghost in the Shell, cyberpunk classic.

If fantasy is the goal but you want more grit less magic, the original Berserk series comes highly recommended. Now with a mixed reviews cgi followup.

[Jiggy]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Mangling your post order a little for ease of reply...

Jiggy wrote:

It's not okay to see Asians in an eastern drawing style on the box and conclude that it must be DBZ-style over-the-top ki-magic action even when the box art depicts something vastly different than that, just like it wouldn't be okay to see photographed Americans on the box art and conclude that it must be a John Wayne-style cowboy movie even when the box art depicts something else entirely.

Maybe the people currently reading don't do that, but I'm not saying they do. I'm just saying that there are plenty in this community who do, and that's what I'm talking about.

I think I do this to a large extent. I'm going to claim that it is okay to prejudge erroneously in this way - in my case, I'm happy to concede that there's a high risk of error due to ignorance. I'm not aware of the differences between various kinds of 'asian animation styles' (I didn't even really know there were multiple styles until stumbling over threads like this. I've always just assumed that "Japanese animation is too over-the-top for my tastes").

Quote:

I'm not talking about looking at everything the box art tells you and drawing reasonable conclusions based on the whole dataset you have available. I'm talking about disregarding a large part of what the box art tells you and drawing completely unreasonable conclusions based on the single element that you can't seem to see past.

I think my 'whole dataset' is significantly smaller than the 'whole dataset' of an educated viewer who picks up the same cover.

I think it would be silly of me and become not-okay if I started arguing with people who are aware of the subtletie. Presumably that's the issue you'd have too?

To be clear, I'm not talking about subtleties.

For example, if I offered you True Grit (a conventional American cowboy movie) and Rustler's Rhapsody (a spoof on the American cowboy movie genre), I wouldn't expect you to see the difference prior to watching those movies. They're both clearly cowboy movies. Knowing the subtleties of their differences is not something most people would expect of you.

However, if I offered you The Avengers (sci-fi/fantasy superhero action) and Get Smart (a comedic spoof on spy movies), and you said "No thanks, I don't like cowboy movies," well, that's just ridiculous. Even worse, imagine your actual words were "No thanks, I don't like Hollywood films" while your meaning was still "No thanks, I don't like cowboy movies". And then imagine that when I asked what the hell you were talking about, you referenced the photographs of Americans posing with guns on the box art, just like how you saw John Wayne posing with guns on the box art of all the other "Hollywood films" you've heard of.

That's nonsensical. It's absurd. You'd likely be stunned speechless if you had an interaction like that with someone.

But that's exactly what happens with a lot of folks talking about "anime".

If I offered you Dragon Ball Z (ninjas and aliens doing over-the-top crazy fights) and One Piece (pirates doing over-the-top crazy fights), no reasonable person would expect you to grasp the subtleties of how the two are different without seeing them first, just like with True Grit/Rustler's Rhapsody. That level of difference is not what I'm talking about.

But if I offered you Re:ZERO (a normal kid is transported to another world, gets disemboweled, then has to keep repeating the same few days until he figures out a way to not die) and Sweetness and Lightning (a recently-widowed schoolteacher learns how to cook better meals for his 6-year-old daughter), and you said "No thanks, I don't like over-the-top crazy fights", then that would be just as ridiculous as the example above with The Avengers/Get Smart. Furthermore, comparable to the above example's use of the term "Hollywood films" to mean "cowboy movies" would be the use of the term "anime" to refer only to the crazy, over-the-top fighting shows. And just like it would be mind-boggling to hear someone say that the "photographs of Americans with guns" is enough to infer that the above examples were cowboy movies, it's equally ridiculous to cite the drawing method of cartoon Asians as being indicative of Re:ZERO/Sweetness and Lightning being DBZ-style action shows.

Any number of folks in this community would find the above "cowboy movies" example shocking, to the point of probably not believing such a dialogue could even happen. And yet, doing the exact same thing with "anime" seems to be par for the course for a lot of folks in this community. What I take issue with is (1) that double-standard, and (2) that some folks are so thoroughly convinced of anime's uniformity that they think the "cowboy movies" comparison is invalid.

Making assumptions on the same tier of absurdity as "that James Bond movie has a guy with a gun so it must be like a John Wayne movie", and/or asserting that anime isn't diverse enough for that to be a valid analogy, are what I'm speaking out against.

[Fabius Maximus]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Bluenose wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

I think I do this to a large extent. I'm going to claim that it is okay to prejudge erroneously in this way - in my case, I'm happy to concede that there's a high risk of error due to ignorance. I'm not aware of the differences between various kinds of 'asian animation styles' (I didn't even really know there were multiple styles until stumbling over threads like this. I've always just assumed that "Japanese animation is too over-the-top for my tastes").

Anime is just the medium, in which there's a lot of different genres. I recommend Moribito (I always recommend Moribito) for a well made 'anime warrior' series. Or Slayers, which is over the top comedy action. Or Ghost in the Shell, cyberpunk classic.

If fantasy is the goal but you want more grit less magic, the original Berserk series comes highly recommended. Now with a mixed reviews cgi followup.

If somebody wants to try the original Berzerk, I suggest to start with the second episode. The first one has next to nothing to do with the rest of the series and you might expect something very different after watching it.

[NenkotaMoon]

JoJo's Blizzard Adventure is literally a bunch of Summoners running around I've realised.

[Steve Geddes]

Jiggy wrote:

But if I offered you Re:ZERO (a normal kid is transported to another world, gets disemboweled, then has to keep repeating the same few days until he figures out a way to not die) and Sweetness and Lightning (a recently-widowed schoolteacher learns how to cook better meals for his 6-year-old daughter), and you said "No thanks, I don't like over-the-top crazy fights", then that would be just as ridiculous as the example above with The Avengers/Get Smart. Furthermore, comparable to the above example's use of the term "Hollywood films" to mean "cowboy movies" would be the use of the term "anime" to refer only to the crazy, over-the-top fighting shows. And just like it would be mind-boggling to hear someone say that the "photographs of Americans with guns" is enough to infer that the above examples were cowboy movies, it's equally ridiculous to cite the drawing method of cartoon Asians as being indicative of Re:ZERO/Sweetness and Lightning being DBZ-style action shows.

Any number of folks in this community would find the above "cowboy movies" example shocking, to the point of probably not believing such a dialogue could even happen. And yet, doing the exact same thing with "anime" seems to be par for the course for a lot of folks in this community. What I take issue with is (1) that double-standard, and (2) that some folks are so thoroughly convinced of anime's uniformity that they think the "cowboy movies" comparison is invalid.

Making assumptions on the same tier of absurdity as "that James Bond movie has a guy with a gun so it must be like a John Wayne movie", and/or asserting that anime isn't diverse enough for that to be a valid analogy, are what I'm speaking out against.

Well, having just googled those two, I can confirm that I would have dismissed re:Zero on the "over the top fighting" basis, based on the artwork I saw. I probably would have been puzzled at Sweetness and Lightning - it's hard to know, of course but I think that prior to this thread my assumption would have been that it was some kind of experiment, but that over the top fighting would feature somewhere - based partly on the title maybe.

My point is that I don't think ruling out a whole genre in this way via gross mis characterisation and oversimplification is "not okay". I think it is inevitable that we're all operating on flawed assumptions in some areas - and that we are pretty much oblivious to what those are until someone with a clue points it out to us. I don't think the takeaway should be to never form opinions or adopt assumptions without doing a certain amount of research. I don't think there's any moral dimension to using scant evidence to form a working hypothesis when confronted with something on the periphery of your your experience.

I do the same with "weird fruit", to give another example. Based on not liking some of the more exotic fruits, I won't try anything that isn't apple, orange, pear....etcetera. There are no doubt many subcategories that I've lumped together as "exotic fruit" but I don't see the harm in me taking the shortcut of writing them all off.

Personally, I think the sin comes if, when confronted with a counter example like your anime pair, I were to then argue with you about what those movies were about or to dismiss your deeper knowledge of the genre as a matter of opinion (which also happens). Same as if I insisted that my "exotic fruit" category all tasted similar over the objections of someone who'd actually eaten them..

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

But if I offered you Re:ZERO (a normal kid is transported to another world, gets disemboweled, then has to keep repeating the same few days until he figures out a way to not die) and Sweetness and Lightning (a recently-widowed schoolteacher learns how to cook better meals for his 6-year-old daughter), and you said "No thanks, I don't like over-the-top crazy fights", then that would be just as ridiculous as the example above with The Avengers/Get Smart. Furthermore, comparable to the above example's use of the term "Hollywood films" to mean "cowboy movies" would be the use of the term "anime" to refer only to the crazy, over-the-top fighting shows. And just like it would be mind-boggling to hear someone say that the "photographs of Americans with guns" is enough to infer that the above examples were cowboy movies, it's equally ridiculous to cite the drawing method of cartoon Asians as being indicative of Re:ZERO/Sweetness and Lightning being DBZ-style action shows.

Any number of folks in this community would find the above "cowboy movies" example shocking, to the point of probably not believing such a dialogue could even happen. And yet, doing the exact same thing with "anime" seems to be par for the course for a lot of folks in this community. What I take issue with is (1) that double-standard, and (2) that some folks are so thoroughly convinced of anime's uniformity that they think the "cowboy movies" comparison is invalid.

Making assumptions on the same tier of absurdity as "that James Bond movie has a guy with a gun so it must be like a John Wayne movie", and/or asserting that anime isn't diverse enough for that to be a valid analogy, are what I'm speaking out against.

]Honestly, in both cases (Hollywood cowboy and anime), I'd say it's far more ignorance than prejudice, much less racism. The Hollywood==cowboy thing is just much rarer, but if you were in some remote backwater country with no media access and all you'd seen of American movies was a few cowboy movies, it would be understandable. Probably not possible today, but maybe 30 years ago. American media is too pervasive today. You might still get stereotyped ideas from it, but it certainly won't be cowboy movies.

You might not think it, but plenty of people - even gamers, still have minimal exposure to anime. Personally, I'd have been more likely to associate with giant robots or mecha and I've still never seen DBZ (or really anything like it). Yes, it's annoying when people complain about "anime-style", meaning one specific bit of what's far more a medium than a genre, but I still don't think it's particularly connected to racism.

[Talonhawke]

I think a better example than "Cowboy" movies might be to assume all American movies will be full of gunplay you know cuz 'Merica.

[Jiggy]

Steve Geddes wrote:

My point is that I don't think ruling out a whole genre in this way via gross mis characterisation and oversimplification is "not okay".

The thing that's "not okay" isn't the ruling out of a whole genre based on oversimplification. What's "not okay" is choosing to believe that the bulk of the visual media output of an entire country is "a genre".

Because sure, if you think that "anime" is a single genre, then of course the stuff I've been saying seems nitpicky and oversensitive and unreasonable. That's why I keep using the analogies about cowboy movies: we're not talking about making generalizations within a genre (such as lumping all cowboy movies together), we're talking about taking a nationwide category of media (such as "American live-action films") and calling it all one genre.

That's a very small box to cram such a large piece of human culture into, don't you think?

[HyperMissingno]

NenkotaMoon wrote:

JoJo's Blizzard Adventure is literally a bunch of Summoners running around I've realised.

They are part 3 and beyond. For part 1 and 2 they're sacred fist warpriests...and in one case a brawler that has some weird custom archetype to grant them positive energy shenanigans.

[Steve Geddes]

Jiggy wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

My point is that I don't think ruling out a whole genre in this way via gross mis characterisation and oversimplification is "not okay".

The thing that's "not okay" isn't the ruling out of a whole genre based on oversimplification. What's "not okay" is choosing to believe that the bulk of the visual media output of an entire country is "a genre".

Because sure, if you think that "anime" is a single genre, then of course the stuff I've been saying seems nitpicky and oversensitive and unreasonable. That's why I keep using the analogies about cowboy movies: we're not talking about making generalizations within a genre (such as lumping all cowboy movies together), we're talking about taking a nationwide category of media (such as "American live-action films") and calling it all one genre.

That's a very small box to cram such a large piece of human culture into, don't you think?

Yes, but I think a reasonable one if the large piece of human culture seems to you like a small, niche subset of it.

Until this moment, I didn't realise anime was a "nationwide category of media", I thought it was a genre.

I struggle with judging ignorance negatively in itself - in my view it has to be wilful before it's not-okay.

[kyrt-ryder]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Yes, but I think a reasonable one if the large piece of human culture seems to you like a small, niche subset of it.

Until this moment, I didn't realise anime was a "nationwide category of media", I thought it was a genre.

Anime is literally an abreviation of 'animation' used by the Japanese.

It would be like lumping all American Cartoons into the same pile. Including things ranging from Looney Toons to Avatar to Dreamswork to South Park to Disney to Futurama.......

[thejeff]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Yes, but I think a reasonable one if the large piece of human culture seems to you like a small, niche subset of it.

Until this moment, I didn't realise anime was a "nationwide category of media", I thought it was a genre.

Anime is literally an abreviation of 'animation' used by the Japanese.

It would be like lumping all American Cartoons into the same pile. Including things ranging from Looney Toons to Avatar to Dreamswork to South Park to Disney to Futurama.......

Which is also a thing commonly done, particularly by older people - "Cartoons are for kids". Less prevalent than a few decades ago, but still a thing.

And again, while it's definitely a stereotyped overgeneralization, it's not racism.

[Jiggy]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

My point is that I don't think ruling out a whole genre in this way via gross mis characterisation and oversimplification is "not okay".

The thing that's "not okay" isn't the ruling out of a whole genre based on oversimplification. What's "not okay" is choosing to believe that the bulk of the visual media output of an entire country is "a genre".

Because sure, if you think that "anime" is a single genre, then of course the stuff I've been saying seems nitpicky and oversensitive and unreasonable. That's why I keep using the analogies about cowboy movies: we're not talking about making generalizations within a genre (such as lumping all cowboy movies together), we're talking about taking a nationwide category of media (such as "American live-action films") and calling it all one genre.

That's a very small box to cram such a large piece of human culture into, don't you think?

Yes, but I think a reasonable one if the large piece of human culture seems to you like a small, niche subset of it.

Until this moment, I didn't realise anime was a "nationwide category of media", I thought it was a genre.

I struggle with judging ignorance negatively in itself - in my view it has to be wilful before it's not-okay.

Well, we could expand the discussion into what constitutes "willful" ignorance, and how that relates to holding the idea that a country might reasonably be believed to produce only a single genre in its animated works, but that discussion probably wouldn't be worth the effort, as those who can admit to having any ignorance at all about anime tend not to be the ones causing problems. ;)

So! Now that you know that there's a whole wide world of "anime" of all genres out there, you should check some of it out. What kinds of shows do you like? I might be able to recommend some good options. :)

[RDM42]

Jiggy wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

My point is that I don't think ruling out a whole genre in this way via gross mis characterisation and oversimplification is "not okay".

The thing that's "not okay" isn't the ruling out of a whole genre based on oversimplification. What's "not okay" is choosing to believe that the bulk of the visual media output of an entire country is "a genre".

Because sure, if you think that "anime" is a single genre, then of course the stuff I've been saying seems nitpicky and oversensitive and unreasonable. That's why I keep using the analogies about cowboy movies: we're not talking about making generalizations within a genre (such as lumping all cowboy movies together), we're talking about taking a nationwide category of media (such as "American live-action films") and calling it all one genre.

That's a very small box to cram such a large piece of human culture into, don't you think?

Yes, but I think a reasonable one if the large piece of human culture seems to you like a small, niche subset of it.

Until this moment, I didn't realise anime was a "nationwide category of media", I thought it was a genre.

I struggle with judging ignorance negatively in itself - in my view it has to be wilful before it's not-okay.

Well, we could expand the discussion into what constitutes "willful" ignorance, and how that relates to holding the idea that a country might reasonably be believed to produce only a single genre in its animated works, but that discussion probably wouldn't be worth the effort, as those who can admit to having any ignorance at all about anime tend not to be the ones causing problems. ;)

So! Now that you know that there's a whole wide world of "anime" of all genres out there, you should check some of it out. What kinds of shows do you like? I might be able to recommend some good options. :)

Signal to noise ratio. Same reason that when I go to get music, I'm not searching under country music unless it's something I already serendipitously found out I like. Of course, because it's non-western anime has special status where not liking it is some sort of ''ist' - where if you don't like country music you are allowed to just not like country music.

[Sundakan]

That's the same for everything though. Sturgeon's Law is the one true constant.

[TriOmegaZero]

RDM42 wrote:

Of course, because it's non-western anime has special status where not liking it is some sort of ''ist' - where if you don't like country music you are allowed to just not like country music.

Depends on why you don't like it. Most people don't leave it at "I don't like it" and go into racist drivel about it.

[Sundakan]

There's also the fact that a lot of people who "don't like" anime have never seen any of it beyond random clips and images from the internet. If that.

I can say I don't like country music (well, most of it) because I've listened to a lot of it.

I can't honestly say I don't like, I don't know, "trap" music because I don't even really know what that MEANS much less have listened to it.

[Sissyl]

If someone honestly says they don't like anime, the most probable cause is what is true of most anime: The drawing style and the breakneck production rate, and what it means for the writing and animation. There are exceptions, and sometimes something gets awesome despite this, but yeah, signal to noise.

[Jiggy]

RDM42 wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

My point is that I don't think ruling out a whole genre in this way via gross mis characterisation and oversimplification is "not okay".

The thing that's "not okay" isn't the ruling out of a whole genre based on oversimplification. What's "not okay" is choosing to believe that the bulk of the visual media output of an entire country is "a genre".

Because sure, if you think that "anime" is a single genre, then of course the stuff I've been saying seems nitpicky and oversensitive and unreasonable. That's why I keep using the analogies about cowboy movies: we're not talking about making generalizations within a genre (such as lumping all cowboy movies together), we're talking about taking a nationwide category of media (such as "American live-action films") and calling it all one genre.

That's a very small box to cram such a large piece of human culture into, don't you think?

Yes, but I think a reasonable one if the large piece of human culture seems to you like a small, niche subset of it.

Until this moment, I didn't realise anime was a "nationwide category of media", I thought it was a genre.

I struggle with judging ignorance negatively in itself - in my view it has to be wilful before it's not-okay.

Well, we could expand the discussion into what constitutes "willful" ignorance, and how that relates to holding the idea that a country might reasonably be believed to produce only a single genre in its animated works, but that discussion probably wouldn't be worth the effort, as those who can admit to having any ignorance at all about anime tend not to be the ones causing problems. ;)

So! Now that you know that there's a whole wide world of "anime" of all genres out there, you should check some of it out. What kinds of shows do you like? I might be able to recommend some good options. :)

Signal to noise ratio. Same reason that when I go to get music, I'm not searching under country music unless it's something I already serendipitously found out I like. Of course, because it's non-western anime has special status where not liking it is some sort of ''ist' - where if you don't like country music you are allowed to just not like country music.

Here's the issue, though:

You open your post with a quote chain (which typically implies you've read it) in which it's explained quite explicitly that "anime" is not a genre (such as "westerns"), but rather an entire medium (such as "American cinema"), which contains just as many genres as any other major medium. You then go on to assert that disliking anime is analogous to disliking a single musical genre.

This is where ignorance crosses over into "willful" territory.

I hope Steve's still reading, so he can see this very good example.

[Sundakan]

Sissyl wrote:

If someone honestly says they don't like anime, the most probable cause is what is true of most anime: The drawing style and the breakneck production rate, and what it means for the writing and animation. There are exceptions, and sometimes something gets awesome despite this, but yeah, signal to noise.

And again, the difference between this and western animation/music/live action tv is...?

[Jiggy]

Sissyl wrote:

If someone honestly says they don't like anime, the most probable cause is what is true of most anime: The drawing style and the breakneck production rate, and what it means for the writing and animation. There are exceptions, and sometimes something gets awesome despite this, but yeah, signal to noise.

You and I have clearly had very different experiences with people who say they don't like anime. :/