Kill La Kill... Puberty metaphor?

[Sunny Sanity]

One thing to keep in mind is that neither the author's intent on the inclusion of the metaphor nor the existence of the metaphor itself matters. I see a trend in which people falsely justify the depth or relevance of a series with the presence of a metaphor. A metaphor's weight depends directly on its relevance and presentation.

Basically, the big question isn't "What does it mean?", but rather "Why is it important?" The author's intent is irrelevant if the audience's interpretation holds enough significance. Likewise, the audience's interpretation is irrelevant if it cannot prove itself useful, which solves the problem of trying to guess the author's intent.

[The Millenium Walken]

Sunny Sanity

One thing to keep in mind is that neither the author's intent on the inclusion of the metaphor nor the existence of the metaphor itself matters. I see a trend in which people falsely justify the depth or relevance of a series with the presence of a metaphor. A metaphor's weight depends directly on its relevance and presentation.

Basically, the big question isn't "What does it mean?", but rather "Why is it important?" The author's intent is irrelevant if the audience's interpretation holds enough significance. Likewise, the audience's interpretation is irrelevant if it cannot prove itself useful, which solves the problem of trying to guess the author's intent.

Will I need to remember this for a test?

[GuardianCentauri]

Sunny Sanity

One thing to keep in mind is that neither the author's intent on the inclusion of the metaphor nor the existence of the metaphor itself matters. I see a trend in which people falsely justify the depth or relevance of a series with the presence of a metaphor. A metaphor's weight depends directly on its relevance and presentation.

Basically, the big question isn't "What does it mean?", but rather "Why is it important?" The author's intent is irrelevant if the audience's interpretation holds enough significance. Likewise, the audience's interpretation is irrelevant if it cannot prove itself useful, which solves the problem of trying to guess the author's intent.

I'm not sure whether that's true, particularly in regards to the author's intent. I remember when someone pointed out some of Urobuchi's comments and apparent meaning behind Madoka, and that did influence my thoughts and interpretations of the series to some degree and added a certain amount of criticism to some fan-based interpretations of the show.

As another example, I've deeply pondered about a lot of stuff that seems between the lines with Claymore for a long time now, but Norihiro Yagi has apparently been rather silent about what might have inspired him to create the series as it is and what possible meanings or messages might be buried within it. As such, I'm usually hesitant to declare my thoughts on such themes as if they're definitely there and would prefer to note that it's only speculation; Yagi may not have meant for any such meaning to be within the series.

As well, how does one determine relevance, importance, usefulness, etc. with a fictional series? It's not like it can be objectively proven since ultimately any fictional themes won't have any significant effect on reality. Relevance is purely within the realm of each person's opinion as such, I think.

[Neon Wasteland]

Trying to find meaning in the meaningless. Good luck with that.

[Sunny Sanity]

GuardianCentauri

Sunny Sanity

One thing to keep in mind is that neither the author's intent on the inclusion of the metaphor nor the existence of the metaphor itself matters. I see a trend in which people falsely justify the depth or relevance of a series with the presence of a metaphor. A metaphor's weight depends directly on its relevance and presentation.

Basically, the big question isn't "What does it mean?", but rather "Why is it important?" The author's intent is irrelevant if the audience's interpretation holds enough significance. Likewise, the audience's interpretation is irrelevant if it cannot prove itself useful, which solves the problem of trying to guess the author's intent.

I'm not sure whether that's true, particularly in regards to the author's intent. I remember when someone pointed out some of Urobuchi's comments and apparent meaning behind Madoka, and that did influence my thoughts and interpretations of the series to some degree and added a certain amount of criticism to some fan-based interpretations of the show.

As another example, I've deeply pondered about a lot of stuff that seems between the lines with Claymore for a long time now, but Norihiro Yagi has apparently been rather silent about what might have inspired him to create the series as it is and what possible meanings or messages might be buried within it. As such, I'm usually hesitant to declare my thoughts on such themes as if they're definitely there and would prefer to note that it's only speculation; Yagi may not have meant for any such meaning to be within the series.

As well, how does one determine relevance, importance, usefulness, etc. with a fictional series? It's not like it can be objectively proven since ultimately any fictional themes won't have any significant effect on reality. Relevance is purely within the realm of each person's opinion as such, I think.

The difference between the Madoka example and the concept I was trying to convey is that the result of your story would've been the same had someone else told you their interpretation. You found it enlightening only because you hadn't previously considered the thought. You're right that the author's intent usually has more relevance due to his involvement with the story. Even so, you should judge the author's interpretation at the same level as the audience's.

You're reverence of the author's intent is valid, but also fairly outdated through general consensus. I agree that relevance is subjective, but an interpretation that society agrees upon must be meaningful to a good portion of the community. An interpretation that is only meaningful to its creator serves no use to society. I can say that I thought Kill la Kill was all about the hardships of racism and intolerance, using far-fetched connections to justify my theory; my interpretation, however personally meaningful, does not hold any value.

I disagree with the statement you made regarding fictional themes and their effect on reality, but I feel that I would sidetrack too much discussing it. When I say "useful," I don't mean the interpretation's direct effect on society's actions (as seen in the cases of the Bible and the Qur'an), nor do I mean the interpretation's benefit to society (as seen in the case of books like 1984 and Uncle Tom's Cabin), but the interpretation's usefulness in understanding the work. In my previous sentence mentioning the Bible and Qur'an, I'm assuming that at least one of these books must be fiction, depending on one's worldviews.

I still haven't touched upon modern literary criticism yet. Many of the generally accepted schools of literary theory place significant value on the reader's interpretation. I'll list some examples in case you want to learn more about this. There's "reader response," "new criticism," "post-structuralism," "weak intentionalism," and a few others I haven't listed. Here's a relevant video on post-structuralism relating to the anime "Evangelion."

Ultimately, these schools of literary thought, like the interpretations of stories, are personal and subjective. Your view of the "author's intent above all" is not an invalid one. Also, have more faith in your own literary abilities. The worth of a piece of art is directly connected to how relatable and "human" it is. You don't need to be an art critic to understand an abstract painting or a chef to understand good food. The only requirements are time and being human.

[GuardianCentauri]

Sunny Sanity

The difference between the Madoka example and the concept I was trying to convey is that the result of your story would've been the same had someone else told you their interpretation. You found it enlightening only because you hadn't previously considered the thought. You're right that the author's intent usually has more relevance due to his involvement with the story. Even so, you should judge the author's interpretation at the same level as the audience's.

You're reverence of the author's intent is valid, but also fairly outdated through general consensus. I agree that relevance is subjective, but an interpretation that society agrees upon must be meaningful to a good portion of the community. An interpretation that is only meaningful to its creator serves no use to society. I can say that I thought Kill la Kill was all about the hardships of racism and intolerance, using far-fetched connections to justify my theory; my interpretation, however personally meaningful, does not hold any value.

I disagree with the statement you made regarding fictional themes and their effect on reality, but I feel that I would sidetrack too much discussing it. When I say "useful," I don't mean the interpretation's direct effect on society's actions (as seen in the cases of the Bible and the Qur'an), nor do I mean the interpretation's benefit to society (as seen in the case of books like 1984 and Uncle Tom's Cabin), but the interpretation's usefulness in understanding the work. In my previous sentence mentioning the Bible and Qur'an, I'm assuming that at least one of these books must be fiction, depending on one's worldviews.

I still haven't touched upon modern literary criticism yet. Many of the generally accepted schools of literary theory place significant value on the reader's interpretation. I'll list some examples in case you want to learn more about this. There's "reader response," "new criticism," "post-structuralism," "weak intentionalism," and a few others I haven't listed. Here's a relevant video on post-structuralism relating to the anime "Evangelion."

Ultimately, these schools of literary thought, like the interpretations of stories, are personal and subjective. Your view of the "author's intent above all" is not an invalid one. Also, have more faith in your own literary abilities. The worth of a piece of art is directly connected to how relatable and "human" it is. You don't need to be an art critic to understand an abstract painting or a chef to understand good food. The only requirements are time and being human.

Regarding the first paragraph, no, they're not the same to me. Although it's certainly possible for me to be interested in or even influenced somewhat by simply a random viewer's interpretation as well, there's definitely a greater degree and weight to it when proof of the actual creator's intent, opinions, and comments is presented. After all, that person is the one who formulated it, decided how characters would be treated, and chose what themes or messages would be added to the work, and that really does have an impact. I suppose it is as close as you can get within literature to having evidence to back up an argument as you would in any other field in which an analysis is being made.

In a similar vein, I was recently reading someone's thoughts on the various possible meanings of a particular song's lyrics, and she regularly quoted the lead vocalist on his opinions and regaled about events in his past in order to attempt to get a better grasp on what he might have meant with what he was saying in the song. If such inclusions of the creator had been absent, the interpretations wouldn't have been as likely to be true, nor would they have been so thorough without the background information that had been researched.

However, I do see some point to what you've said upon your clarifications. I remember from past literary classes that a lot of emphasis was often placed on everyone pondering over their own thoughts and feelings evoked from a piece and that there was kind of a sense that any and every interpretation held possible meaning with no wrong answers per se, in stark contrast to something like mathematics where there is generally only one right answer.

I guess I'd also add that although I agree that sometimes there's a benefit to consensus, it's also still possible at times that a mass belief or opinion can actually be grossly wrong and even potentially damaging to society. This can happen in particular if many people fail to do enough research on the subject and/or reading of multiple interpretations which might open their eyes to other perspectives, and popular opinion sometimes falls into this trap. Additionally, I've learned from experience that newer isn't always better, so if my perspective on all this is "outdated", that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

[Sunny Sanity]

GuardianCentauri

Sunny Sanity

The difference between the Madoka example and the concept I was trying to convey is that the result of your story would've been the same had someone else told you their interpretation. You found it enlightening only because you hadn't previously considered the thought. You're right that the author's intent usually has more relevance due to his involvement with the story. Even so, you should judge the author's interpretation at the same level as the audience's.

You're reverence of the author's intent is valid, but also fairly outdated through general consensus. I agree that relevance is subjective, but an interpretation that society agrees upon must be meaningful to a good portion of the community. An interpretation that is only meaningful to its creator serves no use to society. I can say that I thought Kill la Kill was all about the hardships of racism and intolerance, using far-fetched connections to justify my theory; my interpretation, however personally meaningful, does not hold any value.

I disagree with the statement you made regarding fictional themes and their effect on reality, but I feel that I would sidetrack too much discussing it. When I say "useful," I don't mean the interpretation's direct effect on society's actions (as seen in the cases of the Bible and the Qur'an), nor do I mean the interpretation's benefit to society (as seen in the case of books like 1984 and Uncle Tom's Cabin), but the interpretation's usefulness in understanding the work. In my previous sentence mentioning the Bible and Qur'an, I'm assuming that at least one of these books must be fiction, depending on one's worldviews.

I still haven't touched upon modern literary criticism yet. Many of the generally accepted schools of literary theory place significant value on the reader's interpretation. I'll list some examples in case you want to learn more about this. There's "reader response," "new criticism," "post-structuralism," "weak intentionalism," and a few others I haven't listed. Here's a relevant video on post-structuralism relating to the anime "Evangelion."

Ultimately, these schools of literary thought, like the interpretations of stories, are personal and subjective. Your view of the "author's intent above all" is not an invalid one. Also, have more faith in your own literary abilities. The worth of a piece of art is directly connected to how relatable and "human" it is. You don't need to be an art critic to understand an abstract painting or a chef to understand good food. The only requirements are time and being human.

Regarding the first paragraph, no, they're not the same to me. Although it's certainly possible for me to be interested in or even influenced somewhat by simply a random viewer's interpretation as well, there's definitely a greater degree and weight to it when proof of the actual creator's intent, opinions, and comments is presented. After all, that person is the one who formulated it, decided how characters would be treated, and chose what themes or messages would be added to the work, and that really does have an impact. I suppose it is as close as you can get within literature to having evidence to back up an argument as you would in any other field in which an analysis is being made.

In a similar vein, I was recently reading someone's thoughts on the various possible meanings of a particular song's lyrics, and she regularly quoted the lead vocalist on his opinions and regaled about events in his past in order to attempt to get a better grasp on what he might have meant with what he was saying in the song. If such inclusions of the creator had been absent, the interpretations wouldn't have been as likely to be true, nor would they have been so thorough without the background information that had been researched.

However, I do see some point to what you've said upon your clarifications. I remember from past literary classes that a lot of emphasis was often placed on everyone pondering over their own thoughts and feelings evoked from a piece and that there was kind of a sense that any and every interpretation held possible meaning with no wrong answers per se, in stark contrast to something like mathematics where there is generally only one right answer.

I guess I'd also add that although I agree that sometimes there's a benefit to consensus, it's also still possible at times that a mass belief or opinion can actually be grossly wrong and even potentially damaging to society. This can happen in particular if many people fail to do enough research on the subject and/or reading of multiple interpretations which might open their eyes to other perspectives, and popular opinion sometimes falls into this trap. Additionally, I've learned from experience that newer isn't always better, so if my perspective on all this is "outdated", that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

Oh, when I said "general consensus," I meant "general academic consensus." These are the views of literary critics and writers these days. I tend to have a strong bias toward them since I was taught based on these methods. This was a response to the possible causes of mass belief relating to lack of research.

Jumping back to the song lyric paragraph, post-structuralism (which I mentioned in my previous post) comments directly on this practice of using the author's life in interpretations of his or her work. In this view, the author's history, quotes, and writings are "text," just like the actual "text" itself. It is no different than the text itself and should be viewed holistically along with all the other factors. Check out the video I linked to in the previous post. It's pretty short (around 5 minutes), interesting, and is one of the only times PBS has anything to do with anime. This school of thought contrasts with "new criticism" in that new criticism completely separates a work from its historical and cultural context.

Again, your views aren't wrong. I just like trying to convert people to my personal beliefs. Also, are you dressing up as Nana?

[GuardianCentauri]

Sunny Sanity

Oh, when I said "general consensus," I meant "general academic consensus." These are the views of literary critics and writers these days. I tend to have a strong bias toward them since I was taught based on these methods. This was a response to the possible causes of mass belief relating to lack of research.

Jumping back to the song lyric paragraph, post-structuralism (which I mentioned in my previous post) comments directly on this practice of using the author's life in interpretations of his or her work. In this view, the author's history, quotes, and writings are "text," just like the actual "text" itself. It is no different than the text itself and should be viewed holistically along with all the other factors. Check out the video I linked to in the previous post. It's pretty short (around 5 minutes), interesting, and is one of the only times PBS has anything to do with anime. This school of thought contrasts with "new criticism" in that new criticism completely separates a work from its historical and cultural context.

Again, your views aren't wrong. I just like trying to convert people to my personal beliefs. Also, are you dressing up as Nana?

Oh okay, well that makes a bit more sense then. I would generally trust academia to at least be more thorough in considerations of literary meaning.

Ah, interesting. I am indeed meaning to check out your link as soon as I have more time available in a few days. I understand that you said it's only five minutes, but stuff that makes me think tends to lead to me needing to look stuff up on Wikipedia... And then I start link-hopping in fascination and absorption of new concepts for hours on end. ^^; As well, PBS did something on anime? Wow, weird. o.o

Aww, no prob. Actually, detailed discussions like this can be beneficial in that there's the potential to learn new things even if the two people don't necessarily see eye to eye on every point. That's the way I see it, anyways. :3

And yes, I was aiming for a Nana cosplay (it's too bad that there doesn't appear to be a black re-colour of this hairstyle). I just finished watching that series a few weeks ago, and it totally blew me away on an emotional level. The unfinished ending of the anime kind of sucks, but I want to continue with the manga. It has also triggered something in me similar to what I described above about wanting to explore more in general when I encounter something appealing. In the past, I haven't typically gravitated much towards punk, but I realized that my only rare exposures were more modern versions and often more mainstreamed acts to boot. I've been checking out some of the early beginnings of punk rock from the 70's right now as such, and the emotional rawness of it along with the politics and philosophy is definitely interesting. I can kind of relate to a lot of the nihilism with where I currently am in my own perspectives of the world too.

[Clover_IceQueen]

That would explain the copious amounts of boobs in that series.

[Javier Cross]

Clover_IceQueen

That would explain the copious amounts of boobs in that series.

I wonder how did Studio Trigger manage to bring us a series as Realistic as Kill La Kill in fact.

It's fun and innovative to say the least, and I thought it's more like it explains how
the Females in this series be more than strong enough to carry their chests if anything.

[Javier Cross]

We also factor in regards of adjusting to the clothes being worn as another thing worth noting, it is possible to feel very naked in a Bad Way even with clothes on.

[Mir Teiwaz]

Ween shellan yorra accroad mea, sarla oz enne.
Titil yehah, presia yorr wis yehah, presia yanje.

Here's something I found a while back on this subject:

http://armsmastersproject.tumblr.com/post/64538279324/skaboyjfk-in-the-right-order-this-time-oops

Just click the first image and then you can scroll through the rest easily enough. I thought it made some interesting points.

[Internet Goblin]

Possibly, but I doubt anything deep was meant by it regardless.

If anything it's more about freedom and individuality, since clothes come to represent fascism and everyone is naked in the end, but even that's so overblown that I don't think there's really anything to learn from KLK.

[Fullmetal Joestar]

MUFFlN BUTTON

The Fullmetal Narcissist

Looking for some input on this... I did see some odd parallels to female puberty in the first half of the series... In order to grow up, Ryuko had to collect threads(pubes), trade blood(period), and become comfortable with her body(Costume), and when she loses too much blood, she becomes an uncontrollable monster(PMS). Considering how pretty much everything from Gainax has to do with dicks and d**k jokes, it's refreshing to see Trigger trying something similar with the fairer sex.


Something to ponder, I guess... Does this observation hold water? Care to add to it, or dispute it?

I don't even know How you managed to make that observation but it actually does make quite a lot of sense. Going back through it now just to see that xD

What anime is your sig?