Mmm. Thorny argument.
Good day, flist. You should probably just ignore this. Seriously, this post is even worse than the one before it. It is merely an entry into a certain prizetacular contest which involves posting a blog entry about “fan delusion” and whether or not a creator owes something to their fans. I've won gay manga porn from prizetacular contests before, people, so don't knock it till you've tried it.
In her post, Erica Friedman talks in a concise, clear manner which you will probably not see here about "fan delusion" and most specifically on the kind of fan who believes a mangaka owes them something (say, to make the series go the way they desire) in return for their dedication to the mangaka's series. Her argument seems to sum up with the reminder that making manga is, after all, a business, and that manga providers owe us nothing but the physical product we bought.
Call me a smidge idealistic, but I was a little surprised to hear an argument from a manga fan that so downplays the fact that (some? ^_^) mangaka are not just business people but artists. (Mind, her argument about it being a business may have mainly been focused at those up in arms about aspects of production and licensing and such, but she does still specifically list artists and writers.)
The businessmen owe me nothing but the book I ordered. Artists? ...I'm not sure, and 'owe' is a strong word, but if I were one myself, I do think I might feel a certain amount of accountability or obligation to my my vision and my work and, yes, my potential audience.
And, to leave that thought hanging inexpertly in the air since I'm not sure where I was going with that, let's change gears slightly.
Sometimes, I think I see what happens between writers and their readers as a sort of conversation. Though perhaps a sort of lopsided conversation, depending on the reader's investment (mind, I don't consider just whatever the reader says or writes to be their contribution to the conversation. whatever reaction and thoughts they have can be part of it. of course that's a little unfair because the artist doesn't get to respond to that, but no metaphor is perfect, friends ^^).
And as Erica's post mentions, when you're trying to have a conversation with someone and they keep reinterpreting everything you say in order to fit what they want (we've all talked to this person, right?) it's an incredibly unpleasant and useless experience, made quickly even worse if the listener decides to go off and discuss your supposed views with others, which if you're a little more violent than me probably makes you do something like punch them.
On the other hand, the current/main speaker in the conversation has some obligations of their own, if they really want listeners to hear them out. Now, there are probably different ways to be a good orator, and some people are compelling, intelligent, and crazy enough to just blurt out their views, talking as if in a vacuum, and still get listened to and believed. But most orators, in order to be good, have to consider their audience. Some genius artists, too, have a vision so amazing they don't need to feel any accountability to anything else.
But most artists don't create in a vacuum. They've got to consider that their work goes through multiple reinterpretations before it really gets to anyone. From their head it must suffer being reworked onto a page and from the page it must suffer being reworked into a reader's head.
Like when speaking in a conversation, you may not owe it to your listener to consider how they're going to interpret something, but you sure as heck are wasting the both of you's time if you get them into a conversation about something just to blab about whatever it is you wanted with no consideration to them.
To take something a little more concrete, I'm reminded of some semi-recent developments in the manga Ookiku Furikabutte (or Big Windup! if you're aware of the yet-to-be-released licensed anime, though it doesn't get far enough to contain these parts of the plot). Basically, some...disheartening events in a usually very hopeful manga occurred. Many felt betrayed by this, and many were angry, feeling this manga had not previously presented itself as something that was going to ever get so 'real.' They thought they were reading hyper-idealized fun. That's what they wanted. Personally, I thought I'd seen hints of a tad more realism in certain areas of it anyway, so I was ok with the developments. However, I was just as let down by them as the next person, and it was pretty clear the whole audience needed a pick-me-up. And what do you know, but that in the following chapters the mangaka does indeed start giving us handfuls of very satisfying and hope-repairing scenes.
It was great, I was impressed, the mangaka seemed so aware of just what she had to do to give readers something they didn't think they wanted and still keep them scrabbling for more.
Then, suddenly, without warning, when readers were still in the process of rebuilding their trust with and hope for the series... The mangaka switched the POV from the main characters of the entire series previous to a group of side characters. It stayed this way for MONTHS. These side characters were simply not as well developed, not as interesting, not as endearing. And while I admit I stopped reading the second I saw the switch intending to pick it up later and still have yet to do so, word is that these facts do not change despite the incredible length of time the mangaka suddenly chose to devote to them.
Now, this is a baseball manga. I've seen some argue (unhappily) that the mangaka must consider their manga to be primarily about baseball, so to the hell with the readers who were mostly just reading it for the crazy-good character development in the main characters.
So...I take it Erica Friedman would agree with that statement? Only the thing is, I'm not sure what the mangaka really intended, but I'll tell you that from those transformations the text went through from the author's head to the page to the minds of the readers, this manga became about the main characters's struggle to work together and respect each other in a healthy manner. The legions of fans who couldn't give a crap about baseball, at least not when they started reading, rather supports this argument.
And yes, I think an artist owes it to their work, if not their audience, to notice changes like that and follow through with them. No one has absolute control over their creative creations. But resisting the natural flow of a work from what you initially meant to what it really is is not the right thing to do. You're fighting the nature of your work.
...On the other hand, some fans might use the argument I've made here to say the Oofuri mangaka should not have made the previously mentioned "disheartening events" happen, since to them the manga was supposed to remain in an ever bright, optimistic, perfect world, supposed to be a crowd pleaser, and taking it from that was "fighting the nature of the work." But like I said, I personally thought this development was ok, because I thought I had seen suggestions that the world was not as perfect as it seemed on the surface anyway.
So the problem is that the nature of the work can be misinterpreted. Some interpretations are a little more clearly wrong than others, of course.
In then end, it seems what I mean to say is that I think it's fine for readers to expect something from creators. It's fine for creators to feel some obligation to them. It's fine for works to be interpreted differently. It's even fine to have a fair amount of conviction that your interpretation is possibly somewhat more correct than others. What's not fine is for anyone-reader or even sometimes a creator-to assume that their interpretation is fact. It's an interpretation. By definition, it simply cannot be. If you think it can, well, then that makes you delusional, doesn't it?
Um. It's possible that for readers, this conclusion may be basically the same in affect as Erica's.
Man, you just wasted so much time reading that.
Hmmm, dang, I was going to talk about the way Bokutachi Otoko no Ko seems to almost change genres (from primarily lightly comedic slice-of-life to full on nutsy, unrealistic comedy to a very good but somewhat surprisingly usual BL romance, sometimes to my somewhat disappointment) as it goes through its course as a lame excuse to talk about it since I just finished it a bit ago and am despite this madly in love with it, but I'm bored now I think this argument has run its course.
By which I mean to say, NEXT UP: BOKUTACHI OTOKO NO KO/WE BOYS PIMP POST. ACTUALLY BEING MADE SO THAT I MAY INDULGE MY FANNISH DESIRE TO RANT ABOUT IT ENDLESSLY AND POSSIBLY SO I CAN LINK TO IT WHEN I START POSTING OUR SCANLATIONS AND DEFINITELY NOT SOMETHING I ACTUALLY EXPECT ANY OF YOU TO READ. *froths at the mouth with excitement*
In her post, Erica Friedman talks in a concise, clear manner which you will probably not see here about "fan delusion" and most specifically on the kind of fan who believes a mangaka owes them something (say, to make the series go the way they desire) in return for their dedication to the mangaka's series. Her argument seems to sum up with the reminder that making manga is, after all, a business, and that manga providers owe us nothing but the physical product we bought.
Call me a smidge idealistic, but I was a little surprised to hear an argument from a manga fan that so downplays the fact that (some? ^_^) mangaka are not just business people but artists. (Mind, her argument about it being a business may have mainly been focused at those up in arms about aspects of production and licensing and such, but she does still specifically list artists and writers.)
The businessmen owe me nothing but the book I ordered. Artists? ...I'm not sure, and 'owe' is a strong word, but if I were one myself, I do think I might feel a certain amount of accountability or obligation to my my vision and my work and, yes, my potential audience.
And, to leave that thought hanging inexpertly in the air since I'm not sure where I was going with that, let's change gears slightly.
Sometimes, I think I see what happens between writers and their readers as a sort of conversation. Though perhaps a sort of lopsided conversation, depending on the reader's investment (mind, I don't consider just whatever the reader says or writes to be their contribution to the conversation. whatever reaction and thoughts they have can be part of it. of course that's a little unfair because the artist doesn't get to respond to that, but no metaphor is perfect, friends ^^).
And as Erica's post mentions, when you're trying to have a conversation with someone and they keep reinterpreting everything you say in order to fit what they want (we've all talked to this person, right?) it's an incredibly unpleasant and useless experience, made quickly even worse if the listener decides to go off and discuss your supposed views with others, which if you're a little more violent than me probably makes you do something like punch them.
On the other hand, the current/main speaker in the conversation has some obligations of their own, if they really want listeners to hear them out. Now, there are probably different ways to be a good orator, and some people are compelling, intelligent, and crazy enough to just blurt out their views, talking as if in a vacuum, and still get listened to and believed. But most orators, in order to be good, have to consider their audience. Some genius artists, too, have a vision so amazing they don't need to feel any accountability to anything else.
But most artists don't create in a vacuum. They've got to consider that their work goes through multiple reinterpretations before it really gets to anyone. From their head it must suffer being reworked onto a page and from the page it must suffer being reworked into a reader's head.
Like when speaking in a conversation, you may not owe it to your listener to consider how they're going to interpret something, but you sure as heck are wasting the both of you's time if you get them into a conversation about something just to blab about whatever it is you wanted with no consideration to them.
To take something a little more concrete, I'm reminded of some semi-recent developments in the manga Ookiku Furikabutte (or Big Windup! if you're aware of the yet-to-be-released licensed anime, though it doesn't get far enough to contain these parts of the plot). Basically, some...disheartening events in a usually very hopeful manga occurred. Many felt betrayed by this, and many were angry, feeling this manga had not previously presented itself as something that was going to ever get so 'real.' They thought they were reading hyper-idealized fun. That's what they wanted. Personally, I thought I'd seen hints of a tad more realism in certain areas of it anyway, so I was ok with the developments. However, I was just as let down by them as the next person, and it was pretty clear the whole audience needed a pick-me-up. And what do you know, but that in the following chapters the mangaka does indeed start giving us handfuls of very satisfying and hope-repairing scenes.
It was great, I was impressed, the mangaka seemed so aware of just what she had to do to give readers something they didn't think they wanted and still keep them scrabbling for more.
Then, suddenly, without warning, when readers were still in the process of rebuilding their trust with and hope for the series... The mangaka switched the POV from the main characters of the entire series previous to a group of side characters. It stayed this way for MONTHS. These side characters were simply not as well developed, not as interesting, not as endearing. And while I admit I stopped reading the second I saw the switch intending to pick it up later and still have yet to do so, word is that these facts do not change despite the incredible length of time the mangaka suddenly chose to devote to them.
Now, this is a baseball manga. I've seen some argue (unhappily) that the mangaka must consider their manga to be primarily about baseball, so to the hell with the readers who were mostly just reading it for the crazy-good character development in the main characters.
So...I take it Erica Friedman would agree with that statement? Only the thing is, I'm not sure what the mangaka really intended, but I'll tell you that from those transformations the text went through from the author's head to the page to the minds of the readers, this manga became about the main characters's struggle to work together and respect each other in a healthy manner. The legions of fans who couldn't give a crap about baseball, at least not when they started reading, rather supports this argument.
And yes, I think an artist owes it to their work, if not their audience, to notice changes like that and follow through with them. No one has absolute control over their creative creations. But resisting the natural flow of a work from what you initially meant to what it really is is not the right thing to do. You're fighting the nature of your work.
...On the other hand, some fans might use the argument I've made here to say the Oofuri mangaka should not have made the previously mentioned "disheartening events" happen, since to them the manga was supposed to remain in an ever bright, optimistic, perfect world, supposed to be a crowd pleaser, and taking it from that was "fighting the nature of the work." But like I said, I personally thought this development was ok, because I thought I had seen suggestions that the world was not as perfect as it seemed on the surface anyway.
So the problem is that the nature of the work can be misinterpreted. Some interpretations are a little more clearly wrong than others, of course.
In then end, it seems what I mean to say is that I think it's fine for readers to expect something from creators. It's fine for creators to feel some obligation to them. It's fine for works to be interpreted differently. It's even fine to have a fair amount of conviction that your interpretation is possibly somewhat more correct than others. What's not fine is for anyone-reader or even sometimes a creator-to assume that their interpretation is fact. It's an interpretation. By definition, it simply cannot be. If you think it can, well, then that makes you delusional, doesn't it?
Um. It's possible that for readers, this conclusion may be basically the same in affect as Erica's.
Man, you just wasted so much time reading that.
Hmmm, dang, I was going to talk about the way Bokutachi Otoko no Ko seems to almost change genres (from primarily lightly comedic slice-of-life to full on nutsy, unrealistic comedy to a very good but somewhat surprisingly usual BL romance, sometimes to my somewhat disappointment) as it goes through its course as a lame excuse to talk about it since I just finished it a bit ago and am despite this madly in love with it, but I'm bored now I think this argument has run its course.
By which I mean to say, NEXT UP: BOKUTACHI OTOKO NO KO/WE BOYS PIMP POST. ACTUALLY BEING MADE SO THAT I MAY INDULGE MY FANNISH DESIRE TO RANT ABOUT IT ENDLESSLY AND POSSIBLY SO I CAN LINK TO IT WHEN I START POSTING OUR SCANLATIONS AND DEFINITELY NOT SOMETHING I ACTUALLY EXPECT ANY OF YOU TO READ. *froths at the mouth with excitement*