Am I meant to be able to watch any of this with any other person (particularly female) in the room and them not think I'm watching porn? That outfit is just awful.
I started watching this series and got completely caught up this week... and now I need to wait three weeks for the next arc!
The show is completely ridiculous. It gives me the same feeling that sitting in my room watching G Gundam did in 2003, only with a bit of terrible secret of space thrown in.
I started watching this series and got completely caught up this week... and now I need to wait three weeks for the next arc!
The show is completely ridiculous. It gives me the same feeling that sitting in my room watching G Gundam did in 2003, only with a bit of terrible secret of space thrown in.
I know right? I do not know why people still hate G Gundam. I would not mind if this happens somewhere in the way.
I love this show, and I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but the foreshadowing is really vivid. Like, it would be a twist if Ryuko and Satsuki weren't sisters. It is so obvious, I mean, Satsuki's mom looks just like Matoi. Both are missing each others respective parent. Plus, the whole uniforms and dresses thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we haven't heard anything about Satsuki's dad yet have we?
SPOILERS
I dunno what to think about all the rapey jokes in this show. It kind of reminds me of the sword pulling motif from Utena. Like, it could have a purpose that is insightful enough to redeem its trespass into bad taste, but I haven't figured it out. I want to say there's some deep meaning behind it, but I haven't found it. They've demonstrated that Kamui and wearers with a more comfortable/open/consensual partnership are superior to those that are dysfunctional. Maybe this is a statement about actual relationships? I dunno, but I hope they've heard feedback about it, and taken note that this is a very sensitive issue.
It's really no different than going to PAX despite Krahulik. It's just every so slightly disappointing. With WLA Trigger has shown they are capable of making a great show without those aspects. They could have made a different show just as good as KLK that wasn't about nakedness.
I'd been wondering what you guys thought of all that Krahulik stuff and I am so relieved that you disapprove of his little "incidents".
It's really no different than going to PAX despite Krahulik. It's just every so slightly disappointing. With WLA Trigger has shown they are capable of making a great show without those aspects. They could have made a different show just as good as KLK that wasn't about nakedness.
I'd been wondering what you guys thought of all that Krahulik stuff and I am so relieved that you disapprove of his little "incidents".
The trans issue, however, is complicated. Bear in mind that Mike's opinion is actually very much in line with a good chunk of modern feminism's view on transsexuals who have moved male to female.
The difference being, unless I'm mistaken, Mike actually, after the Tumblr Squad quieted down, realized that he was wrong. Again, this is just what I remember off the top of my head. I could be completely making that up.
Caught up on this one today (home with a sick kid). The uniforms are meant as a parody of other fighting shows, right? The whole transformation animation reminds me of Sailor Moon.
Women are oppressed by society in a general sense.
To succeed in such a society, women must often play along with that society's demands. This is a path to power.
In the show, women wear clothes that give them power, at the expense of dignity and even agency.
The most powerful clothes in the world (in the show) are wedding dresses.
Yet Ryuuko's Godrobe is a school uniform. Does that mean that Ryuuko's father was trying to promote sex equality through the historically lacking or punished education of females? If so, his opposition to the status quo, more than or because of his development of anti-lifefiber technology, may have been the cause of his assassination. Satsuki oppresses both male and female equally which could be seen as a more depressing form of sex equality. As such, it may have been that she was not so opposed to Ryuuko's father and, as is basically confirmed in the latest episode, probably had no direct involvement in his death. But at this point I fear I've tread into the realm of interesting after-market analysis that the creators didn't intend.
You're right, of course. I couldn't give less fucks what the creators intended, but I do like to think about the difference between "God's intent" and "mankind's interpretation", even though it's impossible to know. I use the word fear only because, honestly, K-12 English classes.
All analysis is aftermarket. God (the author) is dead for all intents and purposes: only the work exists.
As someone who's friends with several English bachlors or master's students: Bullshit. New Crit and Death of the Author are being seriously rethought now-a-days.
All analysis is aftermarket. God (the author) is dead for all intents and purposes: only the work exists.
As someone who's friends with several English bachlors or master's students: Bullshit. New Crit and Death of the Author are being seriously rethought now-a-days.
That sounds interesting. Would you be willing to tell us some of their arguments or thoughts on this?
It's mostly that New Crit throws out historical context like the wrapper around a delicious Twix candy bar. It turns out that (surprise, surprise) experiences the author had while writing the book affects how and what the author writes. I'll bug them when they log in, but most of what they said has boiled down to that. New Crit encourages ignoring the historical or philosophical factors around a work. It can be good for some things, but you can't, for example, crit Mein Kampf or 1984 without taking into account the social and political climate of Europe in the 1920s.
This is from the master's student, who's specialty right now is analyzing texts:
[15:40] Jay: New Criticism is primarily used at the HS level to teach students the importance of close reading the text. New Criticism fell out of fashion because of its refusal to acknowledge the reader's role in shaping the text. Further more, they claimed that meaning could be derived from close reading. Ironically, their insistence on trying to find meaning through the use of irony led to deconstruction which argued that no meaning can be fully assigned to a text [15:40] Jay: Nobody does New Criticism anymore. [15:41] Jay: New Criticism destroyed itself with its focus on finding irony and ambiguity. They essentially deconstructed themselves [15:41] Jay: But yeah, nobody studies new criticism. Hell, the vast majority of literary theory is out of date now [15:41] Jay: Including deconstruction [15:42] Jay: As for death of the author: it ignores authors that are not male or white. The experience of a female writer can't be ignored. And death of the author does that. [15:43] Jay: I guess the big thing is to find a philosophical discourse and link it up with a literary work [15:43] Jay: We want concreteness now [15:45] Jay Tell them that NC fell out of fashion in probably the 50s or 60s [15:45] Jay: Or was regulated to the HS level [15:47] Jay: Structuralism came about around the same time as New Criticism along with Russian Formalism. The latter two are pretty much the same idea. In the 60s and 70s we moved into post-structuralism and deconstruction. From there, we had post-colonialism, racial/ethnic theory, some forms of feminism, and queer theory/gender studies [15:48] Jay: I would say yes and no. I do believe in the autonomy of the text. But at the same time, we are demanding more evidence to back up our claims. [15:49] Jay: But either way, NC is not used by anyone. And even post-structuralism has passed in relevance. Hell, we all know what postmodernism is.
He goes on to say that, if you want to know what's replaced NC, it's stuff that's now busy being replaced itself.
Addenda:
[16:00] Jay: You can certainly use New Criticism. And i don't disagree w/what Rym is saying about studying the work by itself. There are instances where you can seperate work from author or just focus soley on the work. However, i do feel that "death of author" gets thrown around too much. The author can be dead, but it doesn't always have to be. If that makes sense [16:00] Jay: I'm curious to his claim about analysis being aftermarket
Ah, well I guess that would explain my negative high school English experience. That and being in high school itself. My response to your friend is that I did not mean to discount the history or position of the author as I feel that is, in a way, part of the work. Rather it is that the thoughts or opinions of the author on how the work should be viewed, what themes are actually present, or what information should be yielded under analysis do not matter to the audience as the way in which a work is received is solely within the realm of that audience. That said, my primary reason for supporting "death of author" is that it is impossible for me to experience a work as anything other than what I am. I can make efforts to view through another's lens, but that method can only go so far. By discounting the opinion's of the author concerning the work itself I can much better appreciate the work by side-stepping the many lenses.
Comments
HO LEE FUCK
The show is completely ridiculous. It gives me the same feeling that sitting in my room watching G Gundam did in 2003, only with a bit of terrible secret of space thrown in.
I haven't watched the newest episode yet since Crunchyroll was late in putting it up.
I would not mind if this happens somewhere in the way.
I love this show, and I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but the foreshadowing is really vivid. Like, it would be a twist if Ryuko and Satsuki weren't sisters. It is so obvious, I mean, Satsuki's mom looks just like Matoi. Both are missing each others respective parent. Plus, the whole uniforms and dresses thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we haven't heard anything about Satsuki's dad yet have we?
SPOILERS
I dunno what to think about all the rapey jokes in this show. It kind of reminds me of the sword pulling motif from Utena. Like, it could have a purpose that is insightful enough to redeem its trespass into bad taste, but I haven't figured it out. I want to say there's some deep meaning behind it, but I haven't found it. They've demonstrated that Kamui and wearers with a more comfortable/open/consensual partnership are superior to those that are dysfunctional. Maybe this is a statement about actual relationships? I dunno, but I hope they've heard feedback about it, and taken note that this is a very sensitive issue.
I actually laughed out loud.
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2014-01-06/mangaka-suggests-kill-la-kill-may-be-plagiarized
Whether true or not, still watching and enjoying.
To succeed in such a society, women must often play along with that society's demands. This is a path to power.
In the show, women wear clothes that give them power, at the expense of dignity and even agency.
The most powerful clothes in the world (in the show) are wedding dresses.
Satsuki oppresses both male and female equally which could be seen as a more depressing form of sex equality. As such, it may have been that she was not so opposed to Ryuuko's father and, as is basically confirmed in the latest episode, probably had no direct involvement in his death.
But at this point I fear I've tread into the realm of interesting after-market analysis that the creators didn't intend.
I use the word fear only because, honestly, K-12 English classes.
[15:40] Jay: New Criticism is primarily used at the HS level to teach students the importance of close reading the text. New Criticism fell out of fashion because of its refusal to acknowledge the reader's role in shaping the text. Further more, they claimed that meaning could be derived from close reading. Ironically, their insistence on trying to find meaning through the use of irony led to deconstruction which argued that no meaning can be fully assigned to a text
[15:40] Jay: Nobody does New Criticism anymore.
[15:41] Jay: New Criticism destroyed itself with its focus on finding irony and ambiguity. They essentially deconstructed themselves
[15:41] Jay: But yeah, nobody studies new criticism. Hell, the vast majority of literary theory is out of date now
[15:41] Jay: Including deconstruction
[15:42] Jay: As for death of the author: it ignores authors that are not male or white. The experience of a female writer can't be ignored. And death of the author does that.
[15:43] Jay: I guess the big thing is to find a philosophical discourse and link it up with a literary work
[15:43] Jay: We want concreteness now
[15:45] Jay Tell them that NC fell out of fashion in probably the 50s or 60s
[15:45] Jay: Or was regulated to the HS level
[15:47] Jay: Structuralism came about around the same time as New Criticism along with Russian Formalism. The latter two are pretty much the same idea. In the 60s and 70s we moved into post-structuralism and deconstruction. From there, we had post-colonialism, racial/ethnic theory, some forms of feminism, and queer theory/gender studies
[15:48] Jay: I would say yes and no. I do believe in the autonomy of the text. But at the same time, we are demanding more evidence to back up our claims.
[15:49] Jay: But either way, NC is not used by anyone. And even post-structuralism has passed in relevance. Hell, we all know what postmodernism is.
He goes on to say that, if you want to know what's replaced NC, it's stuff that's now busy being replaced itself.
Addenda:
[16:00] Jay: You can certainly use New Criticism. And i don't disagree w/what Rym is saying about studying the work by itself. There are instances where you can seperate work from author or just focus soley on the work. However, i do feel that "death of author" gets thrown around too much. The author can be dead, but it doesn't always have to be. If that makes sense
[16:00] Jay: I'm curious to his claim about analysis being aftermarket
My response to your friend is that I did not mean to discount the history or position of the author as I feel that is, in a way, part of the work. Rather it is that the thoughts or opinions of the author on how the work should be viewed, what themes are actually present, or what information should be yielded under analysis do not matter to the audience as the way in which a work is received is solely within the realm of that audience.
That said, my primary reason for supporting "death of author" is that it is impossible for me to experience a work as anything other than what I am. I can make efforts to view through another's lens, but that method can only go so far. By discounting the opinion's of the author concerning the work itself I can much better appreciate the work by side-stepping the many lenses.