Support NeoGAF

[Azure1088]

The main issue with Dan's argument is that it even low-key slights himself. In the hands of a better argument, he might have a point. But, his smug assertions only serve to add chum to the water and give intellectually lazy people a 'gotcha' card. Doesn't work like that. At all. Writers must key in on consistency and logic to make sure their themes work with characters, plot, and setting. This doesn't excuse bad writing. If it cannot be accounted for, then it doesn't make sense. Leia's force example is my favorite one. In the original comics (Legends), she absolutely could use the Force. She was taught by Luke. But, in the movie-verse? No. Not even close by the context of the scene alone. If it's never said, you cannot make that assumption without backstory or empirical evidence in the story to prove it.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

I noticed one thing in one of Dan’s arguments. He argued that "the only things that exist are the text and the ideas the fictional work represents”. His word choice of “represents” is presumptuous and misleading. He claims that a fictional work is representative of the ideas it depicts. And because the story is “eternally mutable by its creator”, the author is therefore a representative of the ideas depicted in the story. Ultimately, the author implicitly or tacitly approves of the featured element in his/her work.

This is a stupid argument because at this point, you're just focusing on the author's cognition rather than the merits of the story itself. And to dismiss a featured element because of possible ulterior motives from the author is basically condemning someone of a thought crime.

 

[Azure1088]

This is a stupid argument because at this point, you're just focusing on the author's cognition rather than the merits of the story itself. And to dismiss a featured element because of possible ulterior motives from the author is basically condemning someone of a thought crime.

Well said. Dan pretty much wants to 'resurrect the author' and interrogate them for the appearance of 'objective themes' in a game/movie/book, because it offends his sensibilities. Dude. Don't be that guy. Accept the work won't conform to your ideas, and critique based on what you see. Use abstract and critical thinking, Olson. You want to get philosophical? Use your brain.

 

[Arkage]

Skimmed. Got to the part where OP video claims that criticizing the utilization of Orc Rape as a type of placeholder for typical rape, is in actuality a type of kink-shaming, and thus sexually repressive/conservative.

In other words TIL orc rapist fantasy and furry orgies are on the same team.

 

[Aintitcool]

If art is required to be politically correct, by definition, it's not art.

In art university you are taught simply. "Art is in eye of the beholder." and politics has nothing to do with art by definition. I don't recall monet drawing politicians but flowers.

 

[Ladioss]

In art university you are taught simply. "Art is in eye of the beholder." and politics has nothing to do with art by definition. I don't recall monet drawing politicians but flowers.

But a politician, Napoleon III, ordered the creation of a salon des refusés for artists whose works were refused by the artistic establishment. See the history of impressionism, or Zola's brand or litterary realism : while art purely dictated by ideology is mere propaganda, good art quite often leave a political footprint merely by pointing out problems and major questions of their times.

But it was a century ago. The complete commodification of art and culture shifted the focus away from the artist and toward the customer; in the current paradigm, calls to "adapt" works of art to fit the spectator / customer are not totally illegitimate. Well, they are understandable, at least. Not really my conception of art, thought.

 

[Aintitcool]

But a politician, Napoleon III, ordered the creation of a salon des refusés for artists whose works were refused by the artistic establishment. See the history of impressionism, or Zola's brand or litterary realism : while art purely dictated by ideology is mere propaganda, good art quite often leave a political footprint merely by pointing out problems and major questions of their times.

But it was a century ago. The complete commodification of art and culture shifted the focus away from the artist and toward the customer; in the current paradigm, calls to "adapt" works of art to fit the spectator / customer are not totally illegitimate. Well, they are understandable, at least. Not really my conception of art, thought.

While it is true many of the greatest known artist did influence political families a lot and worked and commissioned them.(Picasso being known for his politics all his life) Before that it was religious churches commissioning artists like the catholic church. Art now is no longer in such a profession sadly.

But this has to do with the change of scenery in contemporary art. Museums used to not be public, artworks were signs of power, nobility, intelligence. Now all artworks are fairly public at least on the web. So politics is no longer connected to the image like in modern art and renaissance art where the image was only visible by few.

With the number and amount of art being made now and being able to be found online. Politics if its not overt in the image, is not something you can read right away. But the information of the artist would be telling. But if the image only has a name attatched to it. And is mixed with many other artist works.

All politics flies over the head and only the image speaks to itself. But someone from the same country as the artist might enterprise politics from it. I am on both sides of the coin. I can't say art isn't political, I can't say it always is.

As Freud said; "Sometimes a shoe is just a shoe."

Than there is also the ability to reappropriate art and make it political. ("Nice ass" written on mona Lisa replica.) The original artist had nothing to with that but the second hand artist.

 

[Ladioss]

The ability of modern art to reappropriate, pastiche, regurgitate previous works of art could itself be presented as evidence of modern capitalism's ability to take over and assimilate absolutely everything into its economic system

Politics probably exists, at least as a potentiality, inside every work of art ever produced, but methink it becomes "problematic" only when it speaks against the current establishment and/or against its ideology. We then enter a crisis, which will only be resolved when the ruling classes integrates some of these criticisms to evolve a new form of the dominating ideology.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Writing a comprehensive analysis on any topic is rather difficult. Building up your skill in a videogame is difficult, too. Raising your skill-level, sourcing expert knowledge, parsing it for an unknowledgeable audience, and wrapping that all up in a series of cogent articles or videos is difficult beyond belief. Time constraints are a real thing, and depending on the topic there may not be enough people interested in gaining a higher understanding of the topic from your dozens upon dozens of hours of research and learning.

So instead of all that icky difficult stuff, "videogame journalists" prefer to focus on the superficial stuff, the easy stuff, the stuff that catches their attention first. Their writing is so disposable. Who goes back and reads a Kotaku or an IGN article months later? There are plenty of well-written pieces that I'll revisit, but they are not to be found on those sites.

We are in an era when it is easier than ever to git gud at a game. Wikis and guidebooks and tutorial videos and local scenes and conventions and forums and communities are all (mostly) eager to welcome in fresh acolytes to learn about high-level play in their niche of choice. It really shines a bright light on the incompetency of journalists. Kids and teenagers are learning how to speedrun games released decades before they were born. Why can't journalists do a fraction of that work? What value have journalists added to the gaming community in the past 5 years?

Deconstructionism really did a number on these idiots. What was once a joke (like, a grocery store clerk calling themselves an "inventory relocation specialist" for a sad clown laugh) is now an actual way of thinking. They impose their internal impressions upon a piece of art and then fight tooth-and-nail to insist that was the artist's original intent. No, not "intent", but "unconscious bias" or some such. They aim to elevate themselves above the creator with their critique because they are incapable of creating anything of value. They fight with the fans of a particular game or franchise and appeal to unspoken meta rules to "prove" their assertions (the strawmanning and poisoning of the well mentioned in the OP by The Mad Draklor ). The purpose of such pieces is not to educate the viewer or improve their understanding of the medium, but to stroke the author's own ego.

 

[Ixiah]

Wait, is the actual demand from this Soyboy that only Storys he doesnt find offensive are "good" ?

 

[Herr Edgy]

The 'Thermian Argument' is definitely real; it happens and the defense might not make any sense, depending on context (i.e. not all artistic vision actually is artistic vision, and using it as a pretext can be said to be a way of defending yourself from actually valuable criticism of quality; not lack of morals).

The problem with this is that it imposes an inherent moral truth upon the creator. Each individual has a different set of moral values, even if many moral values are shared by people across the globe. And that is where things are going wrong; if you require a creator to adhere to very specific (and also valid) sensibilities, then effectively the creator can not create any more work due to us living in a world where something that doesn't sit quite right with some amount of people simply doesn't exist.
Criticism of a medium is important; I would argue, however, that it might not be criticism if the only thing 'criticized' is the differing moral compass of the story and rather a statement of 'me no likey'.

 

[Azure1088]

Dan is also quite reductive in how he thinks people respond with the 'thermian argument'.

"That's just how the world works." is not a valid argument, Thermian argument or not. No concrete examples or context is given. I wouldn't even accept it. Plus, I've spoken to many fellow writers and almost none of them ever resorted to the above defense. This is a very one-sided argument with little wiggle room for debate, because how he framed this whole argument. It's a head-scratcher.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

The 'Thermian Argument' is definitely real; it happens and the defense might not make any sense, depending on context (i.e. not all artistic vision actually is artistic vision, and using it as a pretext can be said to be a way of defending yourself from actually valuable criticism of quality; not lack of morals).

The problem with this is that it imposes an inherent moral truth upon the creator. Each individual has a different set of moral values, even if many moral values are shared by people across the globe. And that is where things are going wrong; if you require a creator to adhere to very specific (and also valid) sensibilities, then effectively the creator can not create any more work due to us living in a world where something that doesn't sit quite right with some amount of people simply doesn't exist.
Criticism of a medium is important; I would argue, however, that it might not be criticism if the only thing 'criticized' is the differing moral compass of the story and rather a statement of 'me no likey'.

I agree with you that the argument is real and with the rest of your comment. It's that Dan's nomenclature is extremely misleading.

The Thermians cannot separate fiction and non-fiction. They interpret all texts as historical documents. But how does that have to do with citing in-universe rules to prove a story's consistency? It doesn't. The reason why Dan names this argument a 'Thermian Argument' because in his opinion, only the ideas that the fictional work represents is what matters. However, as I pointed out, fictional works aren't representatives of ideas and to assume that authors have ulterior motives is basically fishing for thought crimes.

In addition, the Thermians are a fictional race. They don't exist and humans absolutely do not act like Thermians. When a human reads fiction, the person knows that the text is fiction. However, Dan is presenting the 'Thermian Argument' to an audience of humans. What Dan is doing is devaluing the 'Thermian Argument' by associating it with a fictional race that cannot differentiate fiction from reality. Overall, the argument should be called something like the Argument of Continuity (and it's not a fallacy by any means).

 

[Herr Edgy]

I agree with you that the argument is real and with the rest of your comment. It's that Dan's nomenclature is extremely misleading.

The Thermians cannot separate fiction and non-fiction. They interpret all texts as historical documents. But how does that have to do with citing in-universe rules to prove a story's consistency? It doesn't. The reason why Dan names this argument a 'Thermian Argument' because in his opinion, only the ideas that the fictional work represents is what matters. However, as I pointed out, fictional works aren't representatives of ideas and to assume that authors have ulterior motives is basically fishing for thought crimes.

In addition, the Thermians are a fictional race. They don't exist and humans absolutely do not act like Thermians. When a human reads fiction, the person knows that the text is fiction. However, Dan is presenting the 'Thermian Argument' to an audience of humans. What Dan is doing is devaluing the 'Thermian Argument' by associating it with a fictional race that cannot differentiate fiction from reality. Overall, the argument should be called something like the Argument of Continuity (and it's not a fallacy by any means).

I just took the word as it was, I didn't know anything about the Thermians since I didn't watch the video before; interesting.
I would however argue that fictional works are representative of ideas. There is always some meaning to what a human says, does, creates or writes. Even if only subconsciously, an author writing a story about orcs raping women, men doing the same and no character trying to correct or fight it, will more likely than not not have a good relationship with women as a gender and it tells us about the author's mind, not necessarily his opinions.
Calling it the 'Thermian argument' then is honestly misleading at best, so I agree with you.

As for citing in-universe rules - let's just say that usually, people can differentiate between bullshit and honesty. If there is an in-universe rule that tells women in anime to bend over when piloting mechs and frequently stripping, then that is bullshit and I'm pretty sure most people would agree. I wouldn't accuse the author of sexism though. I would just think his ability to write compelling stories is poor as he seems to be a victim of his own carnal desires that stops him from doing meaninful work. In the end, I will watch it as some kind of satire or not watch it at all, and doubt people's mental capabilities if they think it's good storytelling.

The 'Argument of Continuity' wouldn't fit what Dan is trying to describe, if I understand you correctly here, as his view is that the created universe does not justify the creator's intentions. and I would agree there. Universe (facts) and the window through which we look into the universe (written word, television, games etc.) are two distinct factors. The other way around, however, is valid, as the author's intentions will be related to the way he creates said universe.

In a situation like the orc-raping-women story of the video, the backstory of why the orcs do what they do has nothing to do with how the author portrays said situation (pornographic display). Therefore the entire chain of arguments is invalid and the foundation for discussion is void.
A YouTube comment of the original video sums it up pretty well

So the Thermian Arhgument is basically giving an in-universe answer to an out-universe question?

The question to the author in this case wouldn't be : why are the orcs doing such a vile thing? It would be : why do you portray such a vile thing in a pornographic way?

 

[The Mad Draklor]

I just took the word as it was, I didn't know anything about the Thermians since I didn't watch the video before; interesting.
I would however argue that fictional works are representative of ideas. There is always some meaning to what a human says, does, creates or writes. Even if only subconsciously, an author writing a story about orcs raping women, men doing the same and no character trying to correct or fight it, will more likely than not not have a good relationship with women as a gender and it tells us about the author's mind, not necessarily his opinions.
Calling it the 'Thermian argument' then is honestly misleading at best, so I agree with you.

This is getting into semantics, which I don't like, but I need to make this clear so we don't talk over our heads. Fictional works are representative of ideas in terms of portrayal or depiction. One of the definitions of "represent" is to portray or exhibit in art. I went by the definition of "to serve as a sign or symbol of". Fictional works aren't representative of ideas in that sense because obviously, a story that depicts slavery, for instance, isn't really a symbol of slavery.

As for citing in-universe rules - let's just say that usually, people can differentiate between bullshit and honesty. If there is an in-universe rule that tells women in anime to bend over when piloting mechs and frequently stripping, then that is bullshit and I'm pretty sure most people would agree. I wouldn't accuse the author of sexism though. I would just think his ability to write compelling stories is poor as he seems to be a victim of his own carnal desires that stops him from doing meaninful work. In the end, I will watch it as some kind of satire or not watch it at all, and doubt people's mental capabilities if they think it's good storytelling.

The author's ability to write compelling stories is poor if he prioritizes fanservice over story-telling. Titillation is not a bad thing, but if that becomes the focus over the plot, then the audience will disengage and not care anymore. However, we see something like Kill La Kill which is rife with fanservice, but manages to tell a compelling story.

The 'Argument of Continuity' wouldn't fit what Dan is trying to describe, if I understand you correctly here, as his view is that the created universe does not justify the creator's intentions. and I would agree there. Universe (facts) and the window through which we look into the universe (written word, television, games etc.) are two distinct factors. The other way around, however, is valid, as the author's intentions will be related to the way he creates said universe.

Though that will largely depend on what the author's intentions are and the audience's role isn't exactly to be mind readers. We do know that the authors' ultimate intentions are to write an engaging story and the audience will judge their works according to that standard as that is the standard we can all agree with. Anything beyond that will become too subjective and decentralized. However, we can tack on additional standards depending on the genre of the work such as if it's erotica literature. The point of erotica literature is to titillate as that is the nature of the genre. In fact, this perfectly segways into my next point.

In a situation like the orc-raping-women story of the video, the backstory of why the orcs do what they do has nothing to do with how the author portrays said situation (pornographic display). Therefore the entire chain of arguments is invalid and the foundation for discussion is void.

There are two issues with this line of reasoning. The goal of pornos is to titillate and by definition, pornography is sexual material for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal. If the orc raping women anime is strictly pornography, then it is rather pointless to judge the content based on effective storytelling as that is secondary to a pornographic work's goals.

Secondly, describing the scene to be pornographic is presumptuous. You first need to consider any alternative viewpoints before making such an extraordinary claim. Ever since Goblin Slayer aired, Dan claimed that the series perfectly matches his orc example. I would have to vehemently disagree.

When Fighter Girl got her clothes ripped off and pinned down by the goblins, you would think it was just a scene meant to titillate. However, it's used as a dark foreshadowing tactic. A girl whose clothes got ripped off and is forcibly subdued by a bunch of goblins. Do the goblins intend to beat her to death? Well, no as they would've done that immediately like with the other rookie adventurer. In hentai, characters who are depicted in the kind of pose Fighter Girl was forced into implies that intercourse will happen after. Even if the person never watched hentai, however, he/she can still put 2 and 2 together as a sexual pose implies something sexual will happen soon. And the series confirms this as the goblins proceeded to rape her.

Was this scene pornographic, i.e. was it exclusively meant for sexual arousal? Not really. It was meant to show how vile creatures goblins are and how low they will stoop when met with a vulnerable girl. Now, one would say that this is not a good enough justification because this is just for the sake of being edgy. And I would agree with that. However, later in Ep 1, we discover the reasons why the goblins rape women. When Goblin Slayer and Priestess rescued the captured women, Goblin Slayer discovered a hidden room with goblin children. Piecing together the puzzle, the audience will realize that the goblin children came from the victims and that the victims were used as goblin baby-making machines. The point behind the rape scene was not for sexual arousal, it was to reveal a very dark Darwinian truth.

A YouTube comment of the original video sums it up pretty well

The question to the author in this case wouldn't be : why are the orcs doing such a vile thing? It would be : why do you portray such a vile thing in a pornographic way?

But then, I would have to ask how do you know that the scene is portrayed in a pornographic way? Have you considered the alternative arguments and their merits before arriving at your conclusion?

 

[Herr Edgy]

This is getting into semantics, which I don't like, but I need to make this clear so we don't talk over our heads. Fictional works are representative of ideas in terms of portrayal or depiction. One of the definitions of "represent" is to portray or exhibit in art. I went by the definition of "to serve as a sign or symbol of". Fictional works aren't representative of ideas in that sense because obviously, a story that depicts slavery, for instance, isn't really a symbol of slavery.

With this I agree and that's what I meant by my universe vs. window into universe explanation.
A fictional world that features slavery does not inherently make any statements about slavery. The way the author depicts slavery, however, does.

The author's ability to write compelling stories is poor if he prioritizes fanservice over story-telling. Titillation is not a bad thing, but if that becomes the focus over the plot, then the audience will disengage and not care anymore. However, we see something like Kill La Kill which is rife with fanservice, but manages to tell a compelling story.

We are closing in on subjective territory and as "what is good taste and what isn't" isn't the topic here, I'd rather not talk about whether Kill la Kill features compelling storytelling or not despite being fanservice-y, The point of the paragraph you quoted was that for me, 'fan service' indicates poor storytelling but that this doesn't let me make objective judgements of the responsible authors or consumers; I merely think my part about the involved people and leave it at that. And I do that with all things I form opinions on; but I don't necessarily force them onto others. I'm not asking to censor Kill la Kill or to ban stories I believe are badly written, which is the common act people are upset with when it comes to these kind of topics.
To make it explicit, I want anyone to write the stories they want and I want people to engage with them or not based on their interests. That doesn't mean, however, that you can't ask questions or criticize.

Though that will largely depend on what the author's intentions are and the audience's role isn't exactly to be mind readers. We do know that the authors' ultimate intentions are to write an engaging story and the audience will judge their works according to that standard as that is the standard we can all agree with. Anything beyond that will become too subjective and decentralized. However, we can tack on additional standards depending on the genre of the work such as if it's erotica literature. The point of erotica literature is to titillate as that is the nature of the genre. In fact, this perfectly segways into my next point.

At least the intentions of someone citing in-universe reasons as to why women have to be raped on-screen in grotesque detail (the point of the story) are very clear. Because they enjoy it. Not saying that there has to be anything wrong with that, as people can have fantasies and not act upon them. I just dislike the hypocrisy and strawmen arguments used everywhere. If an author wants to write titilating gore fantasies, go ahead, but don't act as if this some kind of meta-commentary on anything. Same for the consumers.

There are two issues with this line of reasoning. The goal of pornos is to titillate and by definition, pornography is sexual material for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal. If the orc raping women anime is strictly pornography, then it is rather pointless to judge the content based on effective storytelling as that is secondary to a pornographic work's goals.

Secondly, describing the scene to be pornographic is presumptuous. You first need to consider any alternative viewpoints before making such an extraordinary claim. Ever since Goblin Slayer aired, Dan claimed that the series perfectly matches his orc example. I would have to vehemently disagree.

To the first one: exactly my point. If you are going to watch some semi-pornographic rape-anime and get something out of it, go ahead, but don't tell me about your artistic integrity or the universe's law that mandates it. We know why you watch it, you know why you watch it.

To the second one: It's not an extraordinary claim, come on. Would I need to consider 'alternative viewpoints' before coming to the conclusion it is a violent scene, too? In any case, I wasn't talking about Goblin Slayer and I haven't watched it. I was using that description as a ground truth. I did look up the scene in question now and while some parts of it were rather explicit, I do agree that it is not a pornographic scene. But since moral values are different from person to person and that's something I recognize, I'm fully okay with someone finding that scene tactless or pornographic. I just don't agree. As long as that someone doesn't tell me what a bad person I am due to it or wants to disable me from having access to it.

Live and let live, basically.

To sum it up: I do believe there is good and bad quality, I do believe fan service inherently subtracts from the experience (nudity or sexuality as plot devices, such as in Goblin Slayer, is not fan service), but I'm not ever going to try and keep people from what I deem bad quality. I believe Dan has a point in the very scenario he depicts in his video (which is not a Goblin Slayer specific scenario), however, his point is pretty much moot since answering question as to why the window into the universe is as tainted by the creator's intentions as it is with the answer of an in-universe explanation doesn't make sense in the first place.

 

[Ixiah]

Man, lets hope this Snowflake never reads Berserk.....

 

[Azure1088]

I remember this, and how the "Thermian" argument works: When Australia tried to ban We Happy Few from being released, the creators refused to change anything. The object of drug abuse was dealt with in such a way that removing it, removed the story. The story being a world on mandated 'uppers' to cloak the squalor around them. The 'Emerald Goggles' in the Wizard of Oz, basically. This adherence to the vision actually got the game re-evaluated and eventually ratified for sale under MA 18+ for drug use, language, and sexual content.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Man, lets hope this Snowflake never reads Berserk.....

Or any 80s/90s anime or manga, in general.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

he's an idiot.


Next.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

he's an idiot.

Next.

The problem is that some people don't realize the absurdity of his argument. Dan uses a bunch of fancy words and couples his argument with statements we can all agree on (e.g. "fiction isn't real") to make his points appear sound.

And what's even worse is when someone else uploaded his counterargument, it got taken down for dubious reasons as if the false flagger did not want Dan to be challenged.

 

[Azure1088]

Well, all we know is that the video was taken down for supposed hate speech. Some claims have come forward that TL;DR may have upset some people with the orc example. At the 14:09 mark, Teal describes an if-then comparison on why the orcs might be evil. It happens to feature an assortment of black and white people in violent situations, showing savagery and brutality. YouTube either has one hell of an itchy trigger finger if they thought it was offensive, or someone took offense and flagged it. He said humans can be savage. No reference to race whatsoever. Still feels a bit dubious with how quick it went down.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Well, all we know is that the video was taken down for supposed hate speech. Some claims have come forward that TL;DR may have upset some people with the orc example. At the 14:09 mark, Teal describes an if-then comparison on why the orcs might be evil. It happens to feature an assortment of black and white people in violent situations, showing savagery and brutality. YouTube either has one hell of an itchy trigger finger if they thought it was offensive, or someone took offense and flagged it. He said humans can be savage. No reference to race whatsoever. Still feels a bit dubious with how quick it went down.

The other reason why I think it was an effort at censorship is because the mirror that I edited into the OP has not been taken down even though it's the exact same video.

 

[Azure1088]

The other reason why I think it was an effort at censorship is because the mirror that I edited into the OP has not been taken down even though it's the exact same video.

On that alone. Oh, yeah. I was referring to the original video. Yeah. That does smell like bullshit. What's great about mirrors- you're curating the video. So, it's an easy litmus test for censorship.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

he's an idiot.


Next.

Thanks you saved me time.

 

[GreyHorace]

This is from a while back. But Toshio Maeda, the creator of Urotsukidoji and La Blue Girl, had a brilliant takedown of the American anime industry looking to censor his work. I thought what he said could apply as a great putdown to Olson's argument.

(+18)INTERVIEW: Creator of ‘La Blue Girl’ Toshio Maeda on Hentai, Tentacles, and “Not Giving a S**t”

Do you see America as profitable for hentai manga?

Just a little. American journalists have come to me and told me that my hentai scenes will corrupt American youth. Yet, you still have very little gun control in America, and kids have access to this all the time. You see in Japan, nothing happens, you can walk on the street in the middle of the night with a skimpy T-shirt or a mini-skirt on and nothing happens, but, in American, seems like you really care about the human rights of the anime and manga world. You don’t give a shit about real human rights, but you will do all you can to judge or put down Japanese culture.