Pontifus's Anime List | Pontifus's Manga List

Pontifus's Profile

I'm looking forward to your writing about Aria the Natural. I've this thesis that Aria is really a 50 episode anime, and the business side of things determined the size of episode batches more than anything.

That said, this 26-episode stretch is to me, the most immersive part of the whole thing, while the final 13 works more as a narrative finish.

But given your posts on the setting, I'm quite excited for what you'd say about Aqua and Neo Venezia now.

I APPROVE OF YOUR PROFILE PIC.

Ahahaha, I was kind of ignoring Twitter most yesterday, so I totally missed you spazzing out over Gunbuster/Diebuster.

WELCOME HOM3.

Rewatch Plus again and again? To be honest, it took me so damn long to watch M7 (with a break while frontier aired) that I haven't experienced much of a dry spell.

But despair not, ever since M7 it's been a pretty steady stream of Macross every couple years. And who knows... maybe the next Minmay will be less useless than Ranka!

Oh shit, your picture is pretty badass. SAUCE PLZ

Oh, I know of what you're talking about; my problem is just that I don't really see much of a difference between "meaning doesn't exist until it is read" and "meaning exists and is in waiting of being read." It seems like splitting hairs, and I don't exactly see either of these "philosophies of reading" to really be mutually exclusive. As long as it's recognized that meaning can be drawn out of a work--any work--and that "meaning" is whatever you want, be it "this is a thrilling and fun work to read!" to hard-core literary analysis, that's really all I care about.

I think I got involved into this argument more or less because I wanted to point out that "ghostlightning @p0nt1fus It's because for all its goodness, ARIA has less to say. You're now reaching for things, or different ways to read it.Not a knock.", which I read as "I don't think Aria has meat to be analyzed and you're stretching too far for it" which is, of course, wrong (as everything does, it depends on what perspectives and the amount of thought and effort you invest into the work). I more or less just wanted to correct him by stating what I just did above: the (preexistent|nonexistent] meaning is derived by the reader by placing the work into a context familiar to them, which means that I might think that War and Peace has no meaning to me, but that doesn't mean that there isn't meaning, I just can't/won't extract it. I believe I quickly got way over my head in hair-splitting at 1am, which isn't fun because I like going to sleep.

And I probably misread the statements that got me into the whole mess. I speak in contexts in which I am familiar, and I certainly wasn't acquainted with this sort of context until, uh, a week ago; my intent was to discuss the validity of meaning and not how it comes to exist. Does that make sense?

ps: I was more hoping for you to recognize the paradoxical qualities of the statement I posted (which may or may not have been there) a la:
1) Statement #2 is false.
2) Statement #1 is true.
but I suppose that only proves points. As I said, I just don't see a difference between the two/I don't think the difference is especially meaningful/I'm just apathetic about it, and what's the difference between apathy and ignorance? If I really had to choose, I'd say the "non-existent meaning until read" was more correct, I suppose, but both produce the same end for me. I think.

I suck at literary theory and philosophy of reading. I think this is too hardcore even for I.

I thought the Daedalus attack was called that because the aircraft carrier which was used as a punching arm was the Daedalus, but that might be my memory being faulty.