@Pleiades Rising:

Hi! Thanks for the comment.

Unfortunately I've dropped the essay for now. The magazine in question delayed their deadline for the issue I wanted to submit it for by a year. At the moment I've got about five good pages and a lot of notes, but other grad school work has pretty much taken priority. Hopefully I'll have time to pick it up in the summer.

As for the portion here, I certainly think you can talk about it in terms of metaphor. Don't forget, first of all, that the Greek μετα-φορά is a transfer, literally a carrying-past or carrying-between. But as I want to have it, what is first <i>carried</i> here is the very meaning of the show, the movie etc. itself (which is something different, of course, from "value"; "meaning" is meant here more in the sense of "the meaning of a sentence"). The fact that a meaning is given to us in the first place, that there is a μεταφέρειν from the thing itself to us, is the absolute condition for any interpretation or misinterpretation. That's the main thing I wanted to point out in this little scrap of writing.

Of course, there isn't really meant to be a "method" that can be put to use here. That's why I thought it could stand on its own, separate from the rest of the essay. I don't set down any rules that interpretations must follow, but I certainly don't deny that interpretations have a standard. What I want to say is that the real standard is the very thing we're trying to interpret, that the shows and movies carry their own authority with them (as it were) at the very moment we watch them. An interpretation articulates the meaning which they give us (in the double sense 1. of ar-tic-u-lat-ion as the non-divisive distinguishing of a whole into a complex of interrelated concepts, as well as 2. of bringing all this to language). An interpretation is valid (if I may be excused for putting it sloppily) to the extent that it allows one to see the interpretive content as something given in the thing itself (e.g., we might sometimes say "I can see why you understand the scene like that" or "I can't see it, really."). And if getting others to "see" something in this way, as well as adequately bringing the meaning itself to language at all, calls a creative use of language, then you're right: metaphor and poetics (in a broad sense) become absolutely necessary components to any good interpretation. (So to talk about Eva propositionally, for example, is not wrong, but it will miss everything important that we find in Eva.) But I don't think this is the first μεταφέρειν that happens, nor the most important.

If you want me to show you any of this "at work," then I suppose I can finish this essay in a few months and do it. But at the same time, I feel it could be misleading. It could produce the sense, for example, that the themes I find in Eva or Utena are the sort of thing one should find in <i>every</i> show one could interpret; but then all I've done is produce another "theory," and that's the last thing I want to do. What I hope for, and see as the only proper path, is that we may simply <i>open ourselves up</i> for these shows and movies and, so far as possible, bring their radiance into the dance of language. How you do that may not be how I would do it, but that doesn't make your way wrong (methodologially or otherwise). The only standard here is the thing itself; the shows and movies themselves are the real "method." And the sooner we pick up on this, presumably, the sooner we can leave the days of "theory" behind.

@:

If you think your comment is "harsh," then I don't think you're familiar with the world of academic philosophical debate (and for that you may count yourself lucky!). Actually, I think it's a perfectly reasonable response to what I'm saying and (moreso) how I'm trying to say it. Since I wrote this, oh, two months ago, it's occurred to me that folks picking it up for the first time wouldn't know what in the sam hell I was getting on about, so maybe it'd be helpful if (in response to you) I clarified some things. So, thank you for asking, and I hope this helps.

First of all, this little excerpt is targeted at a very specific kind of thinking, albeit a widespread one. (All philosophy, I think, is to some degree written for a specific occasion, but this probably more than most.) All over the Humanities, basically wherever anyone would want to interpret something like literature (in this case, anime), there is what I would call a "texts and toolbox" kind of approach to interpretation. In this approach I have (on one side) the various things I want to talk about, and I also have (on the other side) various interpretive theories I shall apply to the texts to make them give up their secrets. The general assumption is that a method (one that has been systematized and usually pre-approved by some kind of authority) must be applied before I can say anything whatsoever about the book or the movie or the show. (You're quite right to notice that the ideas in this excerpt could be applied elsewhere, and the reason is that the "texts and toolbox" approach is one of the cornerstones of the Humanities.) If you take an upper-level class in, e.g., cultural studies or literature or religious studies, this is probably the general picture you will be presented with.

It is also the picture I am now trying to explode. The many "theories" allow you to discover very fascinating bits of trivia to impress your friends with (such and such is a phallic symbol, this and that are subverting normal gender roles, and so on) that are also, unfortunately, absolutely useless for obtaining any clarity on what you're watching or reading means. I can, with very little difficulty, dissect a show like Utena and identify every element in it using any theory of my choice - but what does this actually tell me? Does it say anything about why - in an innocent, unmotivated viewing - a certain scene, a certain story arc, a certain idea is so striking or so moving? Or is it not precisely the reverse? Doesn't the "texts and toolbox" approach tear me away from the simple appropriation of the show as I watch it? I contend this is what actually happens. The goal of the excerpt here, beyond anything else, is just to point out (ideally to the students in these fields) why this approach is, at base, deeply questionable. My outline for an alternative is, of course, inadequate, but it at least strikes me as being on the right course.

Which brings me nicely to the second issue. You sum up my positive point thusly: "Anime must be interpreted carefully so as not to cloud the meaning from the viewing of said anime with outside philosophic influences and so as not to be muddled down by inarticulate statements or lack of a statement at all." The real danger, for me, isn't a "clouded meaning," if by that what is understood is an unclear presentation of what a show is saying, or even the "lack of a statement." Most of the meanings we gain from everyday viewing aren't particularly clear, and yet we get on just fine. The real danger is, so to speak, clear and unclouded meanings that are disconnected from the genuinely given content. One cannot get much more clear than, e.g., labeling all the characters in a series as symbols for various other things; this can be done very precisely, and often very successfully. The problem with all of these theories is not that they don't work, but that they work too well. With no exception that I've found, they can be stretched to apply to any case whatsoever so long as one is willing to put up with a level of absurdity (thus one can write a perfectly coherent essay on how Haruhi is actually about class struggle, or how Dragonball Z is actually a retelling of the Old Testament). The apparently universal applicability of these theories seems to me the best proof that they must be, for the most part, detached from the things they try to talk about. If "clouding the meaning" refers instead to the fact that these approaches frustrate genuine attempts to understand the things being considered, however, then I would agree. It's particularly true in the case of Eva, which has been the (willing) victim of this for years.

Also, I think you may have been slightly confused by my use of the term "articulate." I like this word quite a bit and use it in a number of ways, but here I simply meant it in the sense of bringing to speech (to language). As I said, our unclear (and unarticulated, i.e. unspoken) understandings for shows or books or whatever are perfectly fine most of the time. Philosophy, however, has different requirements. We may, of course, fairly choose not to do philosophy, but assuming we go through with it philosophy will want to discuss such things. Therein lies the whole difficulty, and the whole risk. To bring a meaning to speech is, among other things, to conceptualize it and put it under a terminology. But where are such concepts to be found? Not from any authority, no matter how convincing: this is exactly the fallacy of the approach I just rejected. The only remaining possibility is to gain one's concepts and (as it were) a new way of talking from a confrontation with the matter itself. This is extremely difficult. Ultimately, one needs to work out a kind of poetry (albeit a piecemeal one). The "articulation" of an anime in the way I mean it finally amounts to bringing the meaning of the show to a language rooted in, and negotiated from, the show itself.

In the end, you're right to wonder wonder why I would want to "introduce new concepts to an anime-watching society that is unfamiliar with philosophic interpretation." In a certain sense, I don't. This little polemic should not be considered a call for everyone to interpret anime philosophically; most would find it a bother, and they can get along just as well without wrestling with it. They should close the window, forget about it, and get on with life. This polemic is written, so to speak, for those who are already doing what I describe (whether they know it or not). These are the folks who not only love anime, but also feel some need to discuss what it means. I am trying to allow the relevant readers, whom I assume are already working things through in their own way, to see an alternative to what they may find in their college courses. Formally speaking, this essay has more in common with a kick in the head than a theoretical system of new concepts. ("I am trying to get you to do something," as Ludwig Wittgenstein would say.) Here then is my "method": set free the matter at hand to give itself to you just as it is, and bring it to a poeticizing language drawn from the thing's own logic. Put in that way it risks sounding passe and quite self-evident, but actually carrying it through is the work of a lifetime.