I can’t quite put a finger on how I feel about this episode. Don’t get me wrong ’cause I don’t think it’s a boring episode by any stretch. Rather, there’s just something discordant about its tone. No, not disturbing… again, I don’t know how to put it, so I’ll just get right to the notes I jotted down as I watched the episode.
Notes:
• The episode begins with a balloon dog blowing up and killing the monk that had been escorting the children. Upon closer inspection, the balloon dog’s “bones” apparently look like giant shurikens. That’s some odd physiology. Anyway, the children reason that balloon dogs must have evolved to blow up in order to ensure the survival of the species, but, uh, that seems like a really odd survival tactic to me. How would a “when you lose control, you blow up” gene even manage to propagate? Whatever, it’s just an anime.
• The world has taken on a strange, new aesthetic. In the previous episodes, everything had seem so idyllic and/or pastoral. For instance, the forest was a familiar shade of green and peaceful-looking. In contrast, the fifth episode presents us with an alien-looking world with shades of red and purple… not unlike what we’ve seen from the parables in the earlier episodes:
It’s almost as if the world reflects the characters’ state of mind.
• I didn’t say anything about the queerats looking like hamsters on steroids last week, but it’s hard to take them seriously as threats when they utter such goofy noises.
• Satoru’s behavior also seems a bit weird. First, he isn’t the slightest bit nervous about their their current predicament. Saki, on the other hand, is acting the way you’d expect a person to react when they’re being chased by threatening creatures. Okay, so maybe Satoru’s just stupidly confident… confident enough to let one of the queerats swipe at him. Secondly, however, Satoru seems to wear a strange expression on his face from time to time — the sort of look that implies an ulterior motive:
How did he end up near Saki anyway? Did he follow her when the group decided to split up?
• During their capture, Satoru makes a move on Saki and this is clearly not normal behavior. As a result, Saki instantly recalls the devil’s minoshiro’s words about how scientists wanted the new PK society to mimic bonobo monkeys. If you’ve forgotten about the bonobo monkeys, here’s a refresher: “Bonobos, when levels of tension or stress between individuals in their society reaches a limit, they resolve this through intimate sexual contact. … It was urgent that society be transformed into a bonobo-like Society of love.” I wonder, however, if Saki isn’t just using the devil’s minoshiro’s words to justify — in her mind, anyway — Satoru’s strange behavior. After all, she doesn’t seem exactly willing right from the start:
Plus, Saki only seems to even consider reciprocating as a result of what the talking library had told her, and it doesn’t take her long to reject the idea entirely.
On a related note, which is more true: Satoru acting strangely because he’s been taught or programmed to mimic bonobo monkeys, or that he has always had feelings for her? I’m not saying it has to be an either-or situation, but I’m trying to figure out what the kid is thinking. There have definitely been hints that he likes her, but this alone doesn’t explain the “Oh, we’re locked up? Let’s fuck!” attitude. Kids are dumb, but they’re not that dumb. If, on the other hand, he likes her but he’s really just mimicking bonobo monkeys because he’s stressed, it would explain why Satoru doesn’t seem the slightest bit concerned or scared about the situation they’re in, but then why is Saki impervious to the same bonobo effect? I’ll be disappointed if turns out there’s something special about Saki.
• I guess the thatcher eggs double as explosives. Before anyone brings it up, however, I don’t see how the tiny bit of world-building featuring a thatcher egg in the third episode somehow improves my viewing experience of the fifth episode.
• Okaaaaay:
• When Saki asks one of the queerats what should happen to the friendly colony if they lose to the Tarantula colony, the queerat’s answer seems highly reminiscent of the non-PK users fate during the reign of the slave-owning empires: “…we will be used cruelly as slaves for life. We will be treated below livestock as long as we live, and when we die, we shall be left in the fields or become fertilizer for the crops.” This is hardly proof that the queerats are descendants of some group of humans or anything, but it’s something interesting to keep in mind.
• Upon hearing the queerat’s answer, Saki remembers her father saying how children should never come into contact with the queerats. The reason is because the villagers believe the queerats are “rebelling in secret.” If not for the villagers’ Cantus, the queerats would not have worshiped them. I guess Saki is afraid of what the friendly colony might do if it realized that neither her nor Satoru have access to their powers.
• Why didn’t the queerats implore the village for help? Or did they and, as a result, summarily rebuffed? It seems to me that the existence of a hostile queerat colony would represent a danger to both peaceful queerats and humans alike.
• The animation quality has taken a hit despite this being the most action-packed episode to date.
• Once again, a Shinsekai Yori episode ends on a cliffhanger.
I kind of have a feeling Satoru does like her (considering how he doesn’t seem to like it whenever Saki is with Shun) and on the other hand, I think he does have ulterior motive. Although, while this episode was action packed, I felt I was pretty lost especially since the animation quality looked pretty bad.
I just don’t get why he’s so blase throughout the episode. If it’s the bonobo thing, then it’s super dumb that it can override even common sense. I thought it’d be “Well, we’re not in danger at the moment, but I’m still stressed out so let’s have sex,” but apparently it’s “We just got captured by potentially murderous manrodents, so let’s have sex instead of figuring out what to do.” I hesitate to say he’s just that clueless about the danger they’re in, but maybe the simplest answer is the correct one.
Yeah, it felt like I was watching something fans had thrown together real quick on the computer.
It’s possible that he took it to heart to what the talking library was talking about the bonobo monkeys. He seems to take most things to heart anyway like the myths that the kids shared around the fire although he does seem overconfident and arrogant. He’s probably gullible but he overestimates himself and his abilities (when he was confident when he thought the queerat wasn’t going to attack but it did).
No sex scenes, i’m seriously disappointed.
Wasn’t Saki the last one to go on the the next stage of conditioning (education)? Not to make excuses, but his reaction to the situation was probably more ingrained than hers? And her choice to stop overcame what little brainwashing she had? IDK, regardless it was all very awkward.
To me, it seems like these blowdogs and queerats have been bred to be a direct threat to anyone that uses cantus. The world has evolved to counter the TK threat.
I guess it’s plausible, but the evidence isn’t very strong. Plus, the kids were pretty stressed out during the whole history lesson last week, and I can’t remember anyone trying to get a little freaky.
Bred by who?
The history lesson was also a group situation. Expecting an orgy might be a bit much ;). The moment when the stressed reached a breaking point, the priest came in. I don’t think there was any time to react any other way than they did.
As for the breeding, probably by the same people that created these cantus societies. After you’ve spent all this effort to control and condition, you need one more factor: containment. You need something to keep them where they are at so that they don’t expand and create issues. A vicious humanoid rat would do a good job. In addition, these Scientists created an enemy that was lethal when their cantus was used.
We’ve only been given a limited view of the outside world for a reason so that we can slowly work out what’s going on. I’m kinda excited to see where this all goes now.
It still doesn’t quite add up to me. During the history lesson, the kids actually looked stressed out. If Satoru hit the breaking point during this week’s episode, he didn’t show the slightest hint of it.
But the rats revere the PK users. The only ones that don’t are from a foreign tribe that has migrated here, and from the way the show has portrayed the Tarantula colony, it doesn’t even seem like they’ve ever encountered a PK user before. I bet if the kids hadn’t had their powers sealed, they could’ve gotten the aggressive rats to bow to them too.
It’s a bad sign when you have no idea what you just watched.
To me, this episode was just plain weird. I don’t mind the new art style, in fact I quite liked it, but just going to a new one like this is jarring, especially when some kind of plot is forming. It doesn’t help that you can’t make out whether or not certain facial expressions are, as you said, ulterior motives or just due to bad/different art style.
No, this just didn’t work. But I AM curious to see what will happen. This is one of the rare anime I have no idea where it will go. I like that.
The whole thing just felt like a diversion. For the first four weeks, the story had been about how PK users are dangerous, but the village might be going too far in trying to prevent another disaster. Then in a single episode, we’re now dealing with murderous rats. On the one hand, the episode wasn’t boring, but on the other hand, the show sold me on a particular premise, then switched it up with something else.
These rats will probably play a bigger role. I mean, considering how weird the evolution has been, it would not surprise me if the rats are related to humans in some way. Wasn’t there different human groups once, with one being violent? Could be that they somehow became these rats… and the violent group is attacking. But now it feels like I’m just throwing out a random idea.
I do hope this rat thing calms down though and only turns out to be a “minor thing”, though. Because as you said, the village is far more interesting right now. Heck, just let that library talk for another episode. That was interesting (if a bit boringly executed).
The main thing that bugs me about the rats being descendants of former humans theory is that the idea completely bugs me on a scientific level. Even if humans became more violent and wild as a result of reverting back to hunter-gatherers, there’s no reason whatsoever that natural selection should guide them towards appearing rat-like. Another commenter suggested that the rats may have instead been bred by former scientists to contain the PK users, but as it stands, that’s still just speculation.
“rats may have instead been bred by former scientists to contain the PK users”
Now that would bug me off it it turned out to be true. Weird evolution is more plausible to me, since we’ve seen strange stuff so far. But… trapping themselves like this? Uh… if that’s the case, there must be some kind of way to easily kill them.
The art shift seems to have made the children look older, pretty much teenagers by this point. Which is really weird, since in the preview it goes back to the previous art style and the children actually look like children again. Was there a point? The events in this episode would have to be pretty darn significant if it warranted doing something like this, unless it was done just for aesthetic purposes. That would be kind of lame. Contrived, even.
I’ve seen people claim the sudden shift in art was due to the episode director Yamauchi Shigeasu. So, unless he directs another episode, we might not see it again… then again, it may not be because of him.
So what do we think the new look is supposed to convey? I have my theory from above, but it’s merely speculation.
We might have to wait and see how the show’s tone shifts in the next episode before we can really take a stab at this question.
Maybe it was to make that sexual scene less creepy.
…oh who am I kidding, this is Japan.
I mentioned earlier that Satoru seems a bit off. Highlighted in the third episode, he exhibits both a sense of unease and of overconfidence. He questions Shun’s interest in Saki, but doesn’t touch the topic again. It is especially apparent before the night canoeing scene in episode 3. He initially worries about the idea, only to complain being left behind afterwards. This got me thinking that Satoru is just insecure with himself and uses a facade of “coolness” to hide behind. Couldn’t his actions be explained under this perspective?
Insecurity doesn’t usually make someone want to have sex at such an inconvenient time. Like I said in the post above, kids are sometimes stupid but not that stupid.
Though the attempted sex scene makes a mess of my brain, I do think that boys become pretty stupid when it comes to showing off to girls, personal experiences aside. All I want to say is that, unlike Shun the ever rationalist and Mamoru the crybaby, Satoru has some very distinct teenage characteristics going for him.
C’mon, you gotta give teenagers more credit than that. They might be perpetually horny most of the time, but not in front of dangerous manrodents.
You can’t consider them in term’s of today’s teenagers – humanity has undergone some pretty hefty and abrupt evolution. And added to that fact is that they are biologically programmed to have sex when we would lash out with anger and violence.
Besides the emergence of PK powers, there’s nothing to suggest that they react to situations any differently from you or me. And while the anime states that other creatures have undergone impossible levels of evolution over a mere thousand years — and offering up only speculation on why this is so — nothing has really shown that humanity has done the same. The anime itself admits that 1000 years is way too short to observe evolution, so the exposition only goes as far as to say that creatures like the minoshiro may have evolved as a result of the influence from sort of collective consciousness, but we can’t ascertain as to whether or not this bit of theory is even true. Back to humanity itself, even their PK powers doesn’t seem all that different from what the original PK users employed. If anything, it feels as though humanity has stagnated since the fall of the slave-owning empires.
Plus, I dislike this sort of argument fundamentally because you could essentially use it to excuse any sort of strange behavior from the characters.
First, we don’t know whether or not the Library’s words are to be trusted 100%. Secondly, if this is really the case, Saki never showed any signs of it. The only reason she even tried was because the thought had been put into her mind by the Library. Lastly, if it’s really true that kids have been programmed to have sex anytime they are stressed, it is a really dumb mechanism because it makes them have sex during moments of danger rather than just a mechanism to cope with stress.
“The only reason she even tried was because the thought had been put into her mind by the Library.”
(how do you quote?)
Actually, it seemed the other way around to me: she stopped because the thought that it was pre-programed behaviour (rather than genuine lust or affection) had been placed into her head.
And there’s nothing to suggest that the Library can’t be trusted – quite the opposite.
There was no indication that she wanted it to begin with until the thought entered her mind.
Anime’s too straightforward for unreliable narrators.
One of the opening lines “So some creatures really evolve just to kill?” sounds almost like a jab at humans…
All I have to say about this episode (belatedly) is that I guess I found the content not that confusing once we saw the queen, because I somehow got that the author must’ve been into eusocial/sociobiology stuff and that we’re looking at something somewhere between naked mole rats and, say, bees or ants in terms of their social organization. So that was more of an ah-hah for me than a wtf, though I can’t really point to why that’s how I saw things.
That’s not to defend the episode, because I think it’s not really very clear from what’s shown (and could actually be wrong, fwiw). If so it’s like that exploding egg all over again: it’s shown without explanation at first, then explained later, which is an ok narrative technique if done well but it’s not done that well here.
In terms of the animation style: it really didn’t work well for me. If it was meant to be a deliberate style change to communicate some story point it lacked the kind of stylistic control you’d hope for when attempting something like that, and if it was just a drop in quality and consistency for whatever reason then it doesn’t speak well to what we can expect moving forward. If I had to guess I’d say they were trying to cut costs on this episode and hide some of that cost-cutting with the style changes, but didn’t really do a good job.
This sounds more negative than I actually feel; the show has my interest and this episode didn’t do much to increase or decrease it. That said, it’s seems like a show and story that may not have much that’s great for discussion week-to-week, since it’s keeping its cards close to its vest story-wise, and the production has been (largely) straightforward and workmanlike.
(Also: best wishes for whatever’s going on in your personal life.)
I wasn’t confused by the organizational structure of the mole people or anything. I just found her design quite grotesque for a show that has been giving us goofy looking creatures up til now. I mean, between the exploding balloon dogs and the rainbow unicorn, the queen was the first thing that actually looked… realistic?
The problem with the exploding egg for me is that even after it’s been explained, it doesn’t quite lead to anything meaningful beyond its singular use as a grenade of sorts. If the show follows the same trend, well…
I agree the change in animation was unfortunate even if it was meant to be significant with regards to the narrative.
Yeah to keep it brief the egg is handled pretty backwards imho, I think you’d want to explain it away at the time and then just use it later. Separating it like this leaves you unsure what the deal was when you first see it, then when you do see it was something significant its significance is underwhelming and thus disappointing.
Now that I get what you’re saying I half agree. These rats seem like they’re meant to be grotesque but the series has been using an inexplicably clean art style that hides that; the queen is the most grotesque yet but I think it’s an artstyle issue more than a “what is this supposed to be?” issue. Ah well.
A bit surprised it hasn’t been mentioned, but Maria gets a few weird and sinister facial expressions toward the beginning of the episode. She looks as if she finds the death of the monk enjoyable to some extent as she’s ducking behind Saki.
I’ll have to redownload the episode to take a look.
Granted, it could also have just been an animation slip, given that there was a bit of that going on this episode.
you’re right, the rat welcomed the main characters for their power.
Wonder what happen to the rest of the group
I think the explanation of the sexual themed scene, and how it is ended, is rather misleading, as far as the anime is concerned. I’ve heard from someone who actually read the novel it was based on, that – contrary to the anime – they DID have sex. And that Saki was ok with it too, even after thinking it through. Yes, she also stopped for a moment contemplating her behaviour, due to the words of the library-thingy (about the bonobo-genes and her cultural upbringing). In the anime, this is taken as a reflective moment, and a reason for her to not continue (she did not *start* with it because of the words, as had been said here, she started with it because it is normal behaviour, in their culture/time). But the anime did imply she stopped because of thinkoing about those words). She also doesn’t seem really ‘unwilling’ as some have mentionned here; as said, it’s normal practise in their time/culture…rather, she probably is more contemplative and bothered by the words of the library, in contrast to the boy. That said, the real point is, that in the novel, AFTER she thought about the bonobo-things and all that has been said, she THEN decided it was ok after all, and continued having sex (not intercourse, apparently, but a hand- and blowjob).
Of course, the anime didn’t go that far. But more annoying (they could have just hinted at it, and not shown), the underlying mentality and prime psychology of it has been altered by the anime, this way. :-( Now, it would seem as if Saki considered it, in the end, bad, because “they were not bonobo’s”. But in the original setting, she looked back at her upbringing and the bonobo-genes and all that, AND AFTER CONSIDERATION, FOUND IT TO BE WORTHWHILE AND NOT A BAD THING. And she resumed her sexual activities because of that, not acting on instincts alone, but because she agree to it rationally too. Which gives a whole other meaning to the scene, obviously.
Regardless whether how one feels about these kind of scenes, it is regrettable the anime introduced a false image of how it was actually perceived, within the story.
Ah well. It is entirely up to the studio to decide how they want to adapt the story. Too bad the direction they went with wasn’t very good.
Well, that would depend on the contract and the leeway the original author had in it, but regardless, I was talking about the in-story consequences of it. And apart from the contractual phase of it, personally, I do feel an adaptation should remain close to the original, at least in its main tenets. One can put some other accents and a different pace, due of it being a different medium, but to go 180° against the original meaning of it… no-one could claim that part was a good adaptation, nor like that, ethically speaking. And it’s not that small a change; it actually reverts the acceptance of the manipulation of the scientists to create a better, more peaceful society, with a refutation and non-acceptance of it: completely contrary to what the original author wanted to convey, thus.
That said, apart from this botched scene – and the knowledge how it REALLY was meant to be – I still think the series is quite good, and one of the better ones this year. I’ve said it before: this blog is a bit TOO negative, sometimes. That no anime is perfect, we already know. But only criticising is a bit easy. I don’t mind if the criticism is well argumented – and it often is, I agree. But sometimes the arguments are a bit thin and based on ones’ personal likings of certain topics (like sex). I mean: not anime is meant to be realistic, so comparing with reality just to show how wrong the anime is, doesn’t always make sense. More important, I think, is how it’s portrayed IN STORY; does it remain faithful and consistent with itself? Etc.
Sometimes, like with SAO, you’ve done a remarkable job at that, but sometimes, the criticism seems based on comparisons with r/l situations and facts (like the rat-mole creature exploding and complaining that this can’t be, because Darwinism wouldn’t work like that. Ok, it doesn’t. But once you start that way: PK doesn’t exist neither, to start with.)
And also, apart from criticism, one should also try to mention something that is well done. It can’t be that nothing speaks for any of the anime mentioned and nothing positive can be said about it. Especially with tempest and Shinsekai Yori, which are two of the best anime of the whole year, maybe even the last two years.
Umm…nothing personal, of course. Just thought to give my opinion and to mention my thoughts on it all.
I’ve written on this multiple times before, so I don’t want to repeat myself over and over. I’ll just say I wholly disagree. I certainly don’t think you’re violating any sort of ethics just because you change the meaning of a story.
Criticism is subjective. Maybe I think you’re too positive. Yes, I focus on the negatives of anime. I just find it more interesting to discuss where shows possibly misstep. On that same token, I am not interested in the positives unless they are personally interesting. Just to say, “Well, the voice acting is decent” is boring to me. If you disagree, this blog just isn’t for you.
No, it is too easy to apply this philosophy wholesale to all anime. Naruto isn’t meant to be realistic, so I wouldn’t address the realism of Naruto’s logic. On the other hand, Shinsekai Yori is a what-if story that is meant to be about a somewhat plausible future. As such, it requires a certain level realism in order to maintain its narrative immersiveness. I can certainly suspend my disbelief for, say, PK powers, but when characters don’t behave realistically, I think it’s a cop out to fall back on “Well, uh, anime’s not supposed to be realistic!”
Not all of my critiques are equal. Just because I point something out doesn’t mean I take it as seriously as everything else. You bring up the exploding bear, but I mentioned it more as a tongue-in-cheek thing, i.e “Heh, that isn’t really how it works.” What I find is that detractors take everything I write too seriously.
I write about what I personally find interesting. I’m not trying to be fair, and honestly, I don’t care about being fair if it’s boring. I’ve never been a reviewer, I’ve never claimed to be a reviewer, nor do I even want to be one. Of course, it’s not that I never praise anime. I do. I just don’t do it here. I’ve written plenty of positive articles before.
I obviously wouldn’t be criticizing these shows so much if I agreed. In fact, I greatly disagree with the part I’ve highlighted. Tempest isn’t even one of the best anime this season. Hell, it isn’t even a good anime.
Well, I agree with you that the more realistic an anime is pretending to be, the more r/l examples, consistency, behaviour and reasonings can be applied. But in the end, almost every anime is a work of fiction even seinen like Ghost in the shell. So to some extend, they will always divert with current reality. That said, it’s more important for a story/anime/whatever to remain internally consistent, don’t you agree? For instance, the sex scene with Saki and the boy when they were captured by those ratmoles could be considered unrealistic behaviour for 12-years olds in a dangerous situation, but from the consistency of the story (and certainly the way it was originally described in the novel), it does make sense. If humans have bonobo-like behouviour patterns, they *would* act like that – indeed, bonobo’s do it all the time. And they are, indeed, a pretty peaceful chimp-community, compared to other chimps/apes. Thus, something like that could be considered unrealistic in our reality, but still make sense in story. And then I think the latter prevails (otherwise, what’s the point in ahving the story at all?).
I really don’t think tempest is all that bad, though it’s true it had more potential at the start, I thought. It’s too rapidly becoming a typical fight-mages-shounen. Still, compared to other anime, it’s still pretty ok. Even if you take two years. I mean, the last two years have been practically weak in anime-quality. (Well, unless you call anime like Freeze and the like good). But I’m curious; what do you think are the top 3 anime of the last two years, then?
I’ve seen you current list (at least, I presume it’s yours), and I guess it’s difficult debating tastes, but really: Tonari no Kaibutsu better than tempest? It’s as generic as it comes, as MMORPG-anime. At least tempest has a hint of an underlying story, with potential subplots and some mystery in it; SAO has none of it. It’s a no-brainer pop-corm anime, and as such enjoyable (I watch it too), but nothing really remotely original or captivating. But maybe this difference is due to a difference of appraisal of different genres. Overall, what genre do you like best? I would guess slice-of-life?
As far as I can see, you’re pretty much criticising ALL of the anime, in more or lesser degree. Not that I can’t appreciate this to some level (which why your ‘then this blog is not for you doesn’t make much sense), but I feel sometimes it’s taking the easy way out. On itself, it’s not difficult to criticise anything and everything, if your not interested of being fair (dixit yourself). But I don’t think it’s entirely true for you neither; why else would you otherwise try to give well-thought out arguments why it doesn’t make sense and what is wrong with certain scenes, if you’re only prerogative is your subjective feelings about it. Than saying: “It’s crap just because I think so and I feel that way.” would already be enough. Yet you seldom do, and try to substantiate your claims and conclusions. That’s the part I like about the blog, when I can see your rationale to say what you say, and the reasoning for it is well argumented.
In a sense, I’m doing the same with my criticism of the blog now. I’m telling you the strong points and the weak points of it (though I AM trying to be fair, in contrast ;-)) but not just with my own subjective feelings as arguments, no, I try to substantiate WHY I say what I say. And on those things, you can counterargument (as you have done). And thus a (possible) fruitful discussion can immerse. If I just said: “It’s like this because I feel that way” and you say the same, then nothing could be debated anymore.
The point I disagree mostly with you, is, in fact, your first part. It’s quite simple where the ethics are involved in this: when you adapt and change a story so much it begins to go against the original meaning and intention and world-building and ‘universe’ the author has created, then you are, in effect, creating a different story. Is this bad? Couldn’t it even become better? Maybe, or maybe not. But the point is, it’s isn’t the story any longer that it was and which it PRETENDS to be, or at least is pretending to be based on. Then they should portray it as it is: as a new story. But as long as one claims it’s something while it’s not anymore, because the changes made divert from the basic tenets the story was built upon, you’re basically being ethical fraudulent (I’m not talking about the legality of it, here).
Think about it. Use an analogy; if you want to buy champagne, and you see something sold as such, or at least as ‘wine made in the champagne tradition’ but it turns out to have a taste of vinegar and not wine at all, then aren’t you going to feel deceived, and aren’t you entitled to call it unethical behaviour, EVEN if it would legally ok to change wine into wine-vinegar and still pretend it to be wine? Yes, it’s both based on grapes and wine, but one can hardly deny there is something wrong with acting as if it’s both about the same.
The point is, when your changing the story to become another story altogether, your violating the world that the original author intended to tell. It’s breaking the integrity of the story as it was originally shown that makes it unethical – this is true even if the original author agreed to a botched adaptation, because the story is what it is as a unified entity, regardless of monitory decisions made afterwards. Often, however, an author doesn’t really like how it turned out, just *because* his concept and idea is too much violated by a bad adaptation.
But in any case, you can’t have it both ways: you either keep at least the basic tenets of the original story, so the basic point(s) of it remains, or you don’t, but then you can’t act as if it’s about that story. And an *adaptation* inherently means it IS based on the story, but in another format (here, animation). So if any anime diverts so much from the story it begins to change the basic premises and tenets of it (sometimes even turning it 180°), than they should stop calling it an adaptation of that story.
Otherwise, everything can be called whatever adaptation of whatever story, if it all doesn’t matter; whatever floats your boat.
You don’t seem to understand my contention regarding the Saki “sex” scene. I never really questioned the scene’s realism. I merely said that I find it stupid that smart scientists would program their children to engage in sex even in the most dangerous circumstances. This was not a question about realism so much as a question about these scientists’ shortsightedness.
Regarding the plausibility of kids having sex, because of the way the anime portrayed Saki’s reluctance to have sex, I questioned whether or not Satoru had truly been programmed to act that way. From how I read Saki’s reaction, it seemed to me as though the programming wasn’t that strong or perhaps wasn’t even real. I did concede, however, that if the programming was real, his actions made sense. But you admitted yourself that the anime’s portrayal of Saki during this scene made it questionable whether or not the bonobo programming was even potent.
I’ve never said Tonari no Kaibutsu-kun was better than Tempest. I fear you have not read the start of those posts where I rank these anime. I’ve repeatedly stated that I do not rank these shows by their apparent quality, but rather by my apparent interest in them. Likewise, I am more interested in SAO and for many reasons, one of which includes how much I utterly love to criticize it, but that does not remotely mean I think it is a better anime than Tempest. What do I really think on this regard? It’s not a matter of my concern. Again, I have never been a reviewer, I have never tried to be one, and I never want to be one. As such, I would never try to compare these shows by how good they are. And if you think I prefer slice-of-life anime, then you haven’t really read this blog all that much, because I typically disdain slice-of-life.
I’ve written on this before. Just because something’s subjective doesn’t mean it shouldn’t face scrutiny. I will have my reasons to dislike any particular anime, and I will acknowledge that those reasons are ultimately subjective, but in the end, I will have to justify my subjective criticism. These ideas are not exclusive. I’ve never said, “It’s just because I feel that way,” so please, don’t mistake my argument for that.
I’m not going to get into a debate with you here about adaptations. I’ve written on it before, and you can probably find these posts pretty easily.
Maybe I will. If they are well argumented. ;-)
It’s true that your listing of SAO becomes more understandable if you consider any interest, including the interest because you can criticise it better or more, to be a defining trait in the ranking of those anime. However, I than become confused by your high ranking of Shinsekai Yori. Is that high rank also because of your interest and love for criticising it? The better an anime gets, the less there is to cricise, I would logically assume, so I find it difficult to understand why some anime is ranked as high while others are not, even if a high degree of ‘criticise-ableness’ is a defining measurement.
Or am I too deduce the criteria themselves ‘to find it interesting’ vary wildly among the individual rankings? So that one anime gets rank 3 because it’s easy to criticize, another at rank 2 because it’s pissing you off, and yet another rank 1 because that anime has lovely subdued colours and art in it. Something like that?
“But you admitted yourself that the anime’s portrayal of Saki during this scene made it questionable whether or not the bonobo programming was even potent.”
I think it was pretty spot on, exactly how it would turn out, if something like this existed. The big difference between bonobo’s and humans is that our level of rational thought is much greater, and our instincts weak. The two are constantly in turmoil; acting on feelings or using ratio. (Actually, humans don’t have instincts in the biological sense anymore, but that’s another topic). thus, the basic tenet (and reality) is, that humans have the capacity to counter their instincts. Now, we don’t have the bonobo-instincts, but if we did, the essence of what I said would remain true; with ratio, one could still overcome an in-bred instinct.
This is exactly what happens to Saki, and one of the major points the original story in the novel was making, I think. The boy and Saki, due to the stress, clearly begin their sexual activity out of the bonobo-instinct (the scene is not shown right after the explanation of the library by coincidence). Clearly, the boy is less contemplative about it – characters differ, after all. But the girl is, and is rethinking the words, and thus her behavioural pattern (the having-sex-when-in-tension-bonobo-instinct), and she can stop it with her rational thought about it – just like we can. (But, as said, in the novel she then proceeds with it, juust because her rational thought also considered it a good thing).
Of course, where there isn’t that sort of pondering and self-reflection about ones’ own behaviour present, like with the boy, or simply because you don’t know about the bonobo-genes and the cultural en genetic manipulation of the scientists, you simply have no reason to stop a behaviour you deem normal. (Which they do/did).
Think about it; it’s the same for us. For instance, we have the instinctive tendency to find symmetrical faces more beautiful and attractive than unsymmetrical ones. Do many people, not knowing this fact, ever consider and ponder about their linkings and dislikes at face value? No, they just ‘do’. They are unaware of it, but still react according to this preference. If it now turned out this was due to genetic manipulations of some scientists 100 years ago and this becomes known to you, and you then look at a series of pictures with faces, and you ponder about what you just learned, you might actually stop and reflect on your own choosings. It wouldn’t mean you’re suddenly going for the asymmetrical faces though. But, you would rationally think it over. (And most likely, you would still feel more inclined to choose for the symmetrical faces, just because it’s instilled in you. Which is why Saki’s reaction to proceed makes sense; instinctive behaviour isn’t always bad.)
The reaction of Saki, and especially of that in the novel, makes complete sense, thus. If you’re not self-reflective about what you do – and people seldom are, especially with instinctive behaviour-patterns, then you will also not question your own behaviour. To change that, you have to be prone to it (as Saki is), and you have to realise something new which sheds a new light about it, because otherwise it wouldn’t even pop up as an issue to contemplate about.
As for the scientists not being smart; that depends. One could argue it’s not particularity useful in that specific, given situation. But that kind of situation is rare. More often, it will be ‘normal’ stressful situations in a social setting of the village itself. Aka, in most instances, the incurred stress will be when dealing with others in your village; family, friends, fellow-villagers. In that context, it probably is more important and beneficial to have a means of relieving that stress in a peaceful way (with sex), than for the few instances in which it doesn’t have an advantage, like when being captive by an enemy.
One can take the actual example of bonbo’s. When they’re captured by us and put in a zoo, the stresslevels go up, and they have much more sex, indeed (until they’re used to the situation). Of course, that doesn’t do them any good in regard to their captivity. But that wasn’t and isn’t the point of there genes/behaviour in the first place: it was developed to deal with the stress in the group itself. It helps THEM to overcome aggression, which has it’s clear benefits, also biologically (infanticide is very rare with bonobo’s compared to other groups, for instance). The potential disadvantage of having sex when they could be escaping in the situation where they’re captured, does not outweigh the biological advantage the behaviour has in general.
As long as having and holding the internal peace is more important and is more frequent than the disadvantage it possibly has when being captured, it’s a good thing to have.
Thus, if the scientists looked at it that way, in most cases and in the long run, this behaviour can be considered an advantage, even if in some specific situation it could be a disadvantage. In that light, it can be considered not so stupid of the scientists after all.
I never said it was the only defining measurement.
Perhaps.
The episode you’re discussing is two weeks old, so no offense but I don’t really feel like addressing an entire essay on the topic. Sorry, but I don’t have the time, especially since I have Tempest to criticize today! Plus, you’re bringing the novel into this when I have not read it, have no intention to read it, and the post has nothing to do with it.
Well, it’s true it’s been two weeks ago, but I still wanted to make the correction about why the reaction of Saki and the boy wasn’t abnormal, in-story (this is also true for the anime when they start the scene; only in the end they give it another twist. And also about the scientists being stupid; there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for it (basically, it just has to be an advantage (in the Darwinistic sense) to have this kind of behaviour). If the advantages of it outweigh the disadvantages of it – just as it is with the bonobo’s, it’s a useful thing.
But anyway, rest assured; I won’t divulge my thoughts or talk about this episode any longer. ;-)
As for your blog; just as with your ranking (why the ‘perhaps’, btw? Surely you must know how your own ranking works ;-p? ), people may have different reasons why they read it. I for, one, do it specifically for the more in-depth analysis and well argumented criticism you give sometimes, about some episodes: I think they’re often worth the read. I’m less charmed by the easy-cop-out criticism, true. I’m always hoping for more of the first, of course. ;-p But as long as I find interesting things to read here now and then, and it outweighs the less good stuff, I’ll read up now and then too.
For the rest: I admire the work you put into your blog, regardless. I don’t think I would manage to keep it up. Especially if I had to give a more thought-through analysis and argumentation every time – which is why I fear this more elaborate criticism is the first to go when one takes on too much (workload leads to less time – like you said – and this in turn could make the criticism truncated and go for the more easy route). So I hope you won’t overdo it and take on too many anime. If you ever begin feeling stress…well, you can always do like the bonobo! ;-p
I wonder how you expect me to receive your “fair-minded” criticism when you insinuate in every comment you make that I cop out.
What do you mean? I also say you sometimes make good analysis and well-thought argumented conclusions and claims. So, I’m giving a nuanced picture with the good and bad things of the blog. Not to parody Fox, but how is that not ‘fair and balanced’? Why? Do you consider every criticism you make as well substantiated by rational arguments as the next? Every comment you place as thoughtful and well-argumented as the next? You don’t think some of your arguments are much weaker than others and maybe are a bit easily used or you didn’t put as much work into it as in others?
If one is fair, one would acknowledge some are pretty good, but some are pretty weak too. Which is what I do. Of course, the personal appreciation of what is to be considered a good comment or criticism or not may vary from person to person, but to that I already gave the setting in which I consider a comment, criticism or reasoning superior to another; namely by the way it is rationally substantiated in a consistent way by valid arguments, facts and a logical train of thoughts.
If this premise is different, the appreciation of those comments and criticism differs too, of course. But whatever premise taken, one would be hardpressed to claim they are all of the same high-standard quality, whatever standard of quality is being taken. I’m not sure why you would take offence to that; nobody who is human can always hit the spot every time.
Saying that I cop-out is more of an attack on my character than a critique of my writing. Whatever weaknesses I may have in my writing, it is funny to me that you think it is due to some personal failing because I am exhausted, overworked, or just plain feel the need to take the easy way out as you have repeatedly implied. I have never asserted that all of my arguments are equally sound and valid. Obviously, everyone makes mistakes and nobody’s perfect, but to say that I cop-out when the going gets tough is an insult, my friend.
Well, I’m not native-English, so ‘cop-out’ might have been a bit too strong, certainly if it’s deemed to be a character attack (be assured; I’m not interested in attacking your person or character). I more meant it the way in where you sometimes seem to put less effort in it, and go the easy way of giving arguments that are more based on your personal, purely subjective feelings about a certain subject or topic, than a more neutral/objective stance based on logically valid arguments. You’ve indicated this yourself a bit, in your instance that you don’t strive to be fair, nor are a reviewer. Which on itself is fine: it’s a blog, after all, and you can be as subjective or biased as much as you want.
Only, the more the arguments boil down to this subjectiveness and bias, the less they are worth (at least, to me). This is due, exactly *because* it’s an easy thing to do: everyone can criticise from the basis of their own subjective feelings. It’s a whole lot harder to actually come up with valid argumentation, however. Therefore, giving in-depth analysis and convincing arguments are, for me, more worthwhile than comments that have none of it (or less). In this respect, I can’t possibly claim that all your comments are up to par to the same level/standard in regard to having those qualities, but that doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge there are some pretty good ones as well. As said, that’s why I consider it a rather fair-minded criticism about the blog.
As for the reason why your argumentation-level varies a lot; I can only guess, of course. I rather thought I was being lenient with the hypothesis it’s due to being overworked (you DID say yourself you didn’t have time to chat away here, after all) or sometimes take it easy. That would only be normal human behaviour, so I don’t see what there is to be upset about. There are other possibilities and possible reasons, of course, but those would probably be considered funny or rude too and would certainly be more speculative, which is why I omitted them. If you deny that it’s due to any of the things I said, then feel free to say what the real reasons are, then.
Do you feel you’ve put as much effort in every criticism of every episode you’ve done? And if not; what do you consider to be the reason, then?
From my About page: “Moe Sucks is a blog in the strictest sense of the word. I will never claim to write reviews, nor will I ever claim to be an academic. I treat my posts as personal reactions to the shows and films that I watch.” It is thus hilarious that you hope to critique me on my level of analytical consistency. When I sit down to write a post, I am only concerned with how I feel about what I have just seen. That’s it. It’s that simple. I never sit down and say to myself, “Well golly, what in-depth analysis can I come up with today? Oh, this is too hard! I’ll just post my feelings!” No, that is not what I do nor what I would ever want to do. I gauge my reaction to an anime, then I try to accurately capture said reaction in writing. What comes about is never planned.
As said: that’s fair enough. But surely you can see that in a premise that does find valid argumentation important, from within that context, some of your criticism is deemed better than others?
Therefore, there is also no reason to feel attacked, like you seem to feel, since we apparently start from a different premise in what constitutes a worthwhile criticism, and what not. Just like you are giving your opinion on the anime with as only criteria ‘I just post my feelings’ I am giving my opinion on the blog, but substantiated by arguments. Seen the fact that you also sometimes give extensive arguments for WHY you write what you wrote (the feelings), I can’t else but presume that you give importance to arguments as well. As said; if it was just to write how you feel, there is no need to argument it in the first place. The fact you do, and that you let people respond to it, is a sign that think your arguments are worth debating.
In essence: de facto you do more than just write a personal reaction, you also give arguments WHY you have those personal reactions (at least, sometimes). To be honest, what you’re doing now is exactly what I would call a cop-out. You’re often giving arguments and an analysis, yet when someone tries to counter-argument, you go all ‘but it’s not meant to be consistent or to make sense, it’s just a personal reaction’ (in this particular case, anyway). Well, then: why do you make an effort to explain your reasoning in the first place, and why do you let people respond on it? Even if it’s not your intention, certainly you can’t be surprised (or offended) if people question the logic where you give logical argumentation, and not skip that questioning and block it off by saying it’s not meant as a logical argumentation at all.
My point is: if you consider you (also) give arguments, and you consider the arguments you give have some degree of logic and consistency, then it follows that that logic and those arguments can be disputed. and also that some are better than others (in a logical sense). I don’t see where the ‘hilarious’ comes into play; I think this is rather obvious. Once you give those rational arguments, one can not subsequently claim any criticism on them is invalid and hilarious, because you ‘write your blog just as a personal reaction’. Sure, that can be true. But also true is, that you argument your personal reaction. And those arguments inherently open up a way to criticism – as is intended, from any argumentation. This is true, even if you subsequently claim it’s not possible to criticise based on the logic of the given argumentation or analytical consistency. The moment you use it, you’re prone to it, even if it wasn’t the intention to start with.
Disagree. Subjectivity is not always sophistry.
No, you are misinterpreting me. Sometimes, I am serious about an anime. Sometimes, I am not. It is pretty evident when I am being serious, and when I’m just venting my thoughts. When I’m serious about an anime, I would provide an analysis and a fitting argument to support said analysis. In those posts, I freely welcome counterarguments. For lesser shows, however, I simply vent my thoughts. What you seem to have done, is mistake these posts on lesser shows as serious posts. As such, you say that they don’t measure up to the other posts that you find substantively logical. But look, for a show like SAO, I become more of an entertainer than a critic. I mock it relentlessly partly because I enjoy it, and partly because a great deal of my audience enjoys it. This does not mean that I’m taking the easy way out with such posts. This does not mean I’m putting in less of an effort. I just do not seek to provide in-depth analysis on shows I do not respect enough to take seriously, and as a result, I do not give a shit if you provide a counterargument to those posts. You can try, if you want, but ultimately, you are arguing against nothing, because I have not provided an argument, nor have I ever wanted to.
I see. Well, your last part certainly provided a (logical :-) ) explanation of why we were having a miscommunication. In regard to this topic, and considering I primary value the logic in the argumentation – as you’ve gathered by now – and give less worth to just a more liberal and subjective criticise-entertainment, like with SAO, I think it’s best to have a better understanding of what are considered lesser shows and which not. Even your list doesn’t provide a clear clue in this, because, as you said, it’s not ranked to a specific order or theme or encompassing value, so I guess it’s also not ranked according to the ‘seriousness’ of the shows neither.
Though…. even with SAO, you seem to give some good rational reasoning, like with the argument that it doesn’t make sense for the brat/friend to climb all the way up the tower, because in an MMORPG you can just chat far more easily. That WAS a rational reasoning and logical argument. So even there, in those anime that are just entertainment for you, you argument and use logic too, right? Consequently, I think even there some logically oriented criticism is warranted, wouldn’t you agree? For instance, if I didn’t agree with your argument there – which I do, in this case – and would offer a logical counter-argument, it would be a valid criticism on that argument, no?
I guess the line isn’t really all that clear all the time, you’ll have to admit. But am I right in presuming that, as a whole, there is less logic/arguments used in SAO, while the use and value of it is very high in Shinsekai Yori? Obviously, I’m better suited to give my thoughts on the anime-series where you to deem logic and consistency important, or we’ll end up with a largely useless discussion again. Where do you place Tempest? More in the category of entertainment and lesser shows, or more into the ‘serious’ category?
This anime was incredibly sad.