![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaBetween this and that, I'm fairly excited, to say the least, that one of Diana Wynne Jones' books (one of the few I haven't read, actually!), Howl's Moving Castle, is an anime film by none other than Studio Ghibli! One of my all-time dreams is to see my kind of fantasy being filmed (or animated!) for the big screen, and man... man, this is it. This is it.
Seriously, man, the concept that Howl's Moving Castle (the book) was a huge hit in Japan just tickles me greatly. Of course, most of the reviews I've seen so far really annoy me, especially this one by Hollywood Reporter, which (nearly) flat out says that we Americans are dumb and aren't likely to get it (and it's based on a bloody YA book, for crying out loud....) Apparently it possesses a complex plot and a lack of clear-cut 'good' and 'evil' which is likely to 'confuse children':
Critics will find much to write about, but general audiences might be confused by the complexity.
Aaargh. I want to like, chew on this person's ear in frustration (except something less embarrassing for myself, perhaps).
Suffice it to say, I had to really restrain myself not to go on a rant about just how very very much I hate simplified characterization [insert pissy tangent about idealized/fanonized characters here, and gratuitous insulting speculations as to why people need these perfect human beings in fiction and how much I think they should just get laid instead, in the process of which I somehow manage to equate Mary Sues and fanon!Draco], and how much I think so-called 'adults' routinely underestimate both children and themselves; but it is true that even though most people can, they don't like to think. Even I don't necessarily like actual difficult thinking, but to consider a YA fantasy story 'difficult thinking', no matter how complex its construction... it just... *sigh* I still can't wrap my mind around the idea that what's sheer entertainment & escapism for me is actual... er... challenging work(?!) for 'general audiences', whatever those are. Maybe that's solipsistic of me, but I really don't want to expect so little of people.
And then I found a board where finally someone appears to have read the book (quaint as the idea surely is), but hated it because they had to read it in school(??!) which... also sort of takes me aback. I really don't know what I think about them teaching things like Howl's Moving Castle in college (and of course LoTR and Harry Potter, both of which were in classes I've taken). The person said that being taught a book 'kills' it, and... well... I wonder; this is really about analysis (meta) destroying the base reading pleasure, isn't it? By 'being taught' they must've meant 'being made to analyze' or something like it. Personally, I've found that to some extent this is true-- at least, I've rarely come out of a class loving a book more than I had beforehand, though I keep being tempted to take classes with books I think I'd enjoy reading. Ahhh, it is a conundrum.
I love discussing (and interpreting) books-- I mean, there's no greater pleasure outside of reading to me, getting to talk about everything I thought with someone who understands. And I'm really, really looking forward to The Witching Hour and the attending all those panels, 'cause that sort of active, positive discussion only inflames my love and makes me feel all excited about the material all over again. And yet... it's true, I don't feel that way in class. I think perhaps the trick is that I love discussing stories with other other people who're really into them-- who pay attention, who love burrowing inside and just going whole hog on the nooks and crannies within. Meaty goodness! It's a process fueled by passion and discovery for me, not dry analysis at all-- because when I really enjoyed (or at least was affected by) having read something, I can't help but have tons of opinions or observations, some of which I'm unaware of until someone's incisive comment sparks me.
So maybe that's it, then. The reason classes generally strain my appreciation of a book is because the discussion in them is so canned, so rote. The one bright spot is usually the professor (my luck with having passionate professors has been good)-- but writing standardized essays about some 'important' topic, trying to prove a thesis, dissecting a book to find its 'message'... argh, I hate doing those things. Then again, this is the sort of fandom meta I don't like also, and it's probably the most common, really-- so perhaps it's natural for people to want to prove things that are part of their own agenda to start with and use stories as some sort of... ammunition (doesn't that word just make you shudder? ...maybe it's just me.)
The reason I think much lit-crit and meta is bullshit is because it tries to take itself so seriously, so self-importantly, whereas, okay, face it: the reason we're doing this is (hopefully) because we're inspired, provoked, excited or just tickled by the material. In a way, being an academic or a literary/film critic is a fannish activity at heart-- it's when your appreciation of story is so intense that you have to give something back-- to do something, say something, understand more and more so that the story acquires a deeper meaning, a greater resonance, and one can love it (or hate it!) more fully. This self-importance and the focus on proving a thesis or making a point about the book (ie, "I think JKR is saying such-and-such, therefore the obvious conclusion is such-and-such") places the emphasis on the analysis (and even worse, on the analyzer!) rather than the actual material. Where is the love? There's no love anymore; it's just meta-wank, man, who cares?
In that case, I feel I need to point out, it's just fiction. It doesn't matter what the book 'really' says, not to the audience (which will make up its own mind). It probably only matters to the other critics, who're apparently all floating in a shared collective pool of wank. Whether you're right or wrong, if the discourse is about being right or wrong, automatically it ceases to matter one way or the other 'cause the point is lost.
EDIT: On second thought... *sigh* I have to admit my bias, because I always find the basic plot structure (that is, 'what happened' in the first place) to be secondary to meta-structure ('why did it happen?') and the internal linkages and the web of personal consequences. I guess you could say I'm much more interested in the relationships between events than the actual events, because while events are more obviously identifiable and dissectable, it's their effects that (seem to) carry actual meaning.
...And I think I lost my initial point entirely-- if I had one. And yes, I think it's quite possible I was just being defensive 'cause, uh... me and straightforward true/false analysis... uh... not-so-much on good terms. *cough* I think I was just saying, OMG YEAY MIYAZAKI DOES DIANA WYNNE JONES!!1 MY LIFE IS COMPLEAT!!1
Seriously, man, the concept that Howl's Moving Castle (the book) was a huge hit in Japan just tickles me greatly. Of course, most of the reviews I've seen so far really annoy me, especially this one by Hollywood Reporter, which (nearly) flat out says that we Americans are dumb and aren't likely to get it (and it's based on a bloody YA book, for crying out loud....) Apparently it possesses a complex plot and a lack of clear-cut 'good' and 'evil' which is likely to 'confuse children':
Critics will find much to write about, but general audiences might be confused by the complexity.
Aaargh. I want to like, chew on this person's ear in frustration (except something less embarrassing for myself, perhaps).
Suffice it to say, I had to really restrain myself not to go on a rant about just how very very much I hate simplified characterization [insert pissy tangent about idealized/fanonized characters here, and gratuitous insulting speculations as to why people need these perfect human beings in fiction and how much I think they should just get laid instead, in the process of which I somehow manage to equate Mary Sues and fanon!Draco], and how much I think so-called 'adults' routinely underestimate both children and themselves; but it is true that even though most people can, they don't like to think. Even I don't necessarily like actual difficult thinking, but to consider a YA fantasy story 'difficult thinking', no matter how complex its construction... it just... *sigh* I still can't wrap my mind around the idea that what's sheer entertainment & escapism for me is actual... er... challenging work(?!) for 'general audiences', whatever those are. Maybe that's solipsistic of me, but I really don't want to expect so little of people.
And then I found a board where finally someone appears to have read the book (quaint as the idea surely is), but hated it because they had to read it in school(??!) which... also sort of takes me aback. I really don't know what I think about them teaching things like Howl's Moving Castle in college (and of course LoTR and Harry Potter, both of which were in classes I've taken). The person said that being taught a book 'kills' it, and... well... I wonder; this is really about analysis (meta) destroying the base reading pleasure, isn't it? By 'being taught' they must've meant 'being made to analyze' or something like it. Personally, I've found that to some extent this is true-- at least, I've rarely come out of a class loving a book more than I had beforehand, though I keep being tempted to take classes with books I think I'd enjoy reading. Ahhh, it is a conundrum.
I love discussing (and interpreting) books-- I mean, there's no greater pleasure outside of reading to me, getting to talk about everything I thought with someone who understands. And I'm really, really looking forward to The Witching Hour and the attending all those panels, 'cause that sort of active, positive discussion only inflames my love and makes me feel all excited about the material all over again. And yet... it's true, I don't feel that way in class. I think perhaps the trick is that I love discussing stories with other other people who're really into them-- who pay attention, who love burrowing inside and just going whole hog on the nooks and crannies within. Meaty goodness! It's a process fueled by passion and discovery for me, not dry analysis at all-- because when I really enjoyed (or at least was affected by) having read something, I can't help but have tons of opinions or observations, some of which I'm unaware of until someone's incisive comment sparks me.
So maybe that's it, then. The reason classes generally strain my appreciation of a book is because the discussion in them is so canned, so rote. The one bright spot is usually the professor (my luck with having passionate professors has been good)-- but writing standardized essays about some 'important' topic, trying to prove a thesis, dissecting a book to find its 'message'... argh, I hate doing those things. Then again, this is the sort of fandom meta I don't like also, and it's probably the most common, really-- so perhaps it's natural for people to want to prove things that are part of their own agenda to start with and use stories as some sort of... ammunition (doesn't that word just make you shudder? ...maybe it's just me.)
The reason I think much lit-crit and meta is bullshit is because it tries to take itself so seriously, so self-importantly, whereas, okay, face it: the reason we're doing this is (hopefully) because we're inspired, provoked, excited or just tickled by the material. In a way, being an academic or a literary/film critic is a fannish activity at heart-- it's when your appreciation of story is so intense that you have to give something back-- to do something, say something, understand more and more so that the story acquires a deeper meaning, a greater resonance, and one can love it (or hate it!) more fully. This self-importance and the focus on proving a thesis or making a point about the book (ie, "I think JKR is saying such-and-such, therefore the obvious conclusion is such-and-such") places the emphasis on the analysis (and even worse, on the analyzer!) rather than the actual material. Where is the love? There's no love anymore; it's just meta-wank, man, who cares?
In that case, I feel I need to point out, it's just fiction. It doesn't matter what the book 'really' says, not to the audience (which will make up its own mind). It probably only matters to the other critics, who're apparently all floating in a shared collective pool of wank. Whether you're right or wrong, if the discourse is about being right or wrong, automatically it ceases to matter one way or the other 'cause the point is lost.
EDIT: On second thought... *sigh* I have to admit my bias, because I always find the basic plot structure (that is, 'what happened' in the first place) to be secondary to meta-structure ('why did it happen?') and the internal linkages and the web of personal consequences. I guess you could say I'm much more interested in the relationships between events than the actual events, because while events are more obviously identifiable and dissectable, it's their effects that (seem to) carry actual meaning.
...And I think I lost my initial point entirely-- if I had one. And yes, I think it's quite possible I was just being defensive 'cause, uh... me and straightforward true/false analysis... uh... not-so-much on good terms. *cough* I think I was just saying, OMG YEAY MIYAZAKI DOES DIANA WYNNE JONES!!1 MY LIFE IS COMPLEAT!!1
