How do you differentiate "deep," "3deep5u," and pretentious anime?

FlatEight said:

I would say yes. Implications are fantastic if you do them right, but can also create a mess of a story if you don't telegraph a little of what the characters are thinking.

TheBrainintheJar said:


I actually can't stand inner monologues.

In general, I think the story should be obvious and themes should be implied. Themes shouldn't be discussed but demonstrated via situations and symbols. The story itself shouldn't be too vague or else, the viewer writes the story.

FlatEight said:

I don't like inner monologes either. What I ment by telegraphing was showing what the characters are thinking in some way, not explaining it directly.

I pretty much agree with most of that, unless the story is ment to be vague and up to interpretation (Serial Experements Lain comes to mind).

TheBrainintheJar said:
I actually thought the vagueness harmed SEL, but I'm still not sure what to make of it.

Caelidesu said:

SEL explores a lot of abstract concepts so it almost had to be vague in order to tell its story while sticking with its premise (treating the internet as if it's its own conscious entity viz. the emergent property of all online interaction). I think its the insanely fast pacing and anachronism that gets people, rather than the symbolism.

TheBrainintheJar said:


No, it doesn't have to be this way. The experimental narrative was mostly Lynchian without the fine grip he has. It created a nice sense of mystery and was weird enough, but it felt like it was vague and confusing on purpose.

merryfistmas said:
Yes, it absolutely does have to be this way. Referencing Lynch does nothing for you. SEL is the type of show that requires rewatching, we are never given much of an insight into Lain's mind, but this is done on purpose, to distance us from her, because that's how it is for the rest of the cast. It's "mystery" is fully explained, often explicitly. If you want a more in depth and spoilery explanation, just ask.

TheBrainintheJar said:


I miss the part where the mystery is fully explained. So what's the big spoiler?

merryfistmas said:
I'm not sure what you got out of Lain or where you got confused, but I'll tell you what I thought and some things I noticed after rewatching it.

First


Anyway, let's get to the weird stuff.


Now we have the important part


This is were it gets confusing for me, so it'd be cool if sombody else could join it.
I guess I could say more, but nah. I want to hear your thoughts.

TheBrainintheJar said:


I don't think you need an especially weird narrative to express these ideas. I wasn't satisfied with how Lain explored the different identities we have in the real world and in the internet because it had too many weird moments, and not enough "This is Lain in the Wired, this is Lain in the world". Maybe it was harder to grasp these ideas back then, but now we don't need a weird narrative for this. It's such a part of life that a basic story about a dude who spends time on message boards is enough.

merryfistmas said:
I think it was important to have this narrative style for two reasons.

1. withholding information from the viewer impresses upon us just how different wired Lain and real Lain are. The narrative style fits the theme very well as we are just as confused (at least upon first viewing) as the other characters.

2. While the connections to our modern internet are fascinating, the most important themes are its metaphysical implications

Based on what I've learned from talking to you, it seems that you dislike any kind of unusual narrative style, and if that's your preference then it is what it is, but I think there is inherent value in something being different, even before we get into why it works for that particular work.

TheBrainintheJar said:
Two of my favorite films are Pi and Eraserhead. My favorite novels include Fight Club, As I Lay Dying and Catch-22. I love unusual narratives. I'm just highly critical of them because they're a great way to hide bullshit (Like grimdark). Only SEL is mostly Icarus Syndrome.

I don't think SEL withholds information from the viewer. It's not a detailed-plot story but an expressive, psychological one. It's more accurate to say that I didn't find the confusion emotionally rich enough. It definitely try to go there, but it was mostly weird.

I'm sorry to say I didn't understand the philosophical-metaphysical implications. Perhaps try another way to explain?

merryfistmas said:
I forgot about that, I guess I've just seen you criticizing them often.

It withholds information by not giving us an insight into Lain's mind, that's why I used those example before, and it's how Lain creates mystery.I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence.

The wired shows us that the laws that appear to govern our world are fabrications of our mind, and it's very desturbing in a way that's hard to explain. Let me put it this way, could you describe the laws of the wired? Is it something we could comprehend? This is what I mentioned before, that there is (or could be) knowledge that is beyond our comprehension. This is supplementary to everything else, it isn't exactly the driving force of the plot, but I guess you it succeeds in making an atmosphere that makes it's narrative style work in it's favor... if that makes sense.

There's also

TheBrainintheJar said:
In general, what I lack in these ideas is practical implications. Ideas have consequences. So unless a philosophical idea can clearly help me or change my view it doesn't do anything. I think what keeps me from understanding these concepts is that I don't see how to they relate to life.

masterofgo said:
Ideas in art do not need to have practical implications directly on you. I fail to see how that is really significant. Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov was a novel purely built on aesthetics, and a number of great aesthetic writers in Japan wrote novels that were essentially written for the sake of art.

Art does not need to have practical meaning. That should not be its purpose. Philosophy in general is merely the fundamental nature of knowledge. Knowledge in and of itself does not guarantee any practical benefits nor does it have to change your views. There are plenty of ideas I find intriguing and fascinating, and I think if they are explicated well, it does not even matter if the idea is compelling enough to change my mind. Various Christian texts will never change my atheist position but that does not change their fundamental greatness as texts.

The same can be said for a variety of very artistic anime such as Ergo Proxy and Yuasa's Cat Soup. Neither of these anime really have any particular real world applications, but they are still fascinating visual experiences.

shintai88 said:


True this. Mainly cause slice of life stuff is more relatable.

masterofgo said:
Ideas in art do not need to have practical implications directly on you. I fail to see how that is really significant. Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov was a novel purely built on aesthetics, and a number of great aesthetic writers in Japan wrote novels that were essentially written for the sake of art.

Art does not need to have practical meaning. That should not be its purpose. Philosophy in general is merely the fundamental nature of knowledge. Knowledge in and of itself does not guarantee any practical benefits nor does it have to change your views. There are plenty of ideas I find intriguing and fascinating, and I think if they are explicated well, it does not even matter if the idea is compelling enough to change my mind. Various Christian texts will never change my atheist position but that does not change their fundamental greatness as texts.

The same can be said for a variety of very artistic anime such as Ergo Proxy and Yuasa's Cat Soup. Neither of these anime really have any particular real world applications, but they are still fascinating visual experiences.

AltoRoark said:

I think what he means is that the ideas have to be portrayed convincingly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but themes always stem from the intent of projecting a message directly to the viewer/reader. It's definitely significant. Not necessarily to change one's view, but for that person to get the proper idea. That's the least it can do.

TheBrainintheJar said:
What I couldn't do is establish a connection between the philosophical ideas merryfistmas said SEL has, to my life. I actually think SEL has plenty to say that's relatable to real life. I'm talking about merryfistmas' comment.

TheBrainintheJar said:
It's more along the lines of, the philosophical ideas must relate to the world and have practical applications. If I accept a philosophical idea, I need a way to act on it. If I accept that the internet breaks down traditional identity and I can invent however I want, I now understand I have this option.

masterofgo said:
Trying to fit every novel's philosophical ideas to your life is ridiculous. Ideas do not exist merely to support someone's personal world philosophy. Otherwise, we would never study any philosophy but the one that pertains to our worldview. There is no reason to read anachronistic philosophies because they have zero real world application.

SEL's outdated philosophical messages is irrelevant to why it is good as an anime.

Philosophy and knowledge are not mutually inclusive with the real world and its applications. I do not understand how you could have come to this conclusion other than completely misunderstand why people pursue philosophy in the first place.

In addition, you do not need to accept a philosophical idea for a novel to be great. That would be the equivalent of saying since you are an atheist, all Christian texts must be bad because I reject Christianity by default.

TheBrainintheJar said:
Again, I don't think you understand my point. I don't mean that I must agree with the ideas. I mean that the ideas can be used.

TheBrainintheJar said:

It's more along the lines of, the philosophical ideas must relate to the world and have practical applications. If I accept a philosophical idea, I need a way to act on it. If I accept that the internet breaks down traditional identity and I can invent however I want, I now understand I have this option.

merryfistmas said:
Oh no Brain, it is causing me physical pain to read this. Why is simply thinking about these things not enough of a reason? If you don't like thinking about things with no practical application then the show, and probably the entire subject isn't for you. I have to agree with masterofgo again, you don't seem to understand why people practice philosophy. Do you have any interest in the nature of identity, whether or not we have free will or any of the metaphysical mysteries of life? It's really hard to imagine somebody not wanting to think about these things simply because it doesn't affect their daily lives.

merryfistmas said:
Oh no Brain, it is causing me physical pain to read this. Why is simply thinking about these things not enough of a reason? If you don't like thinking about things with no practical application then the show, and probably the entire subject isn't for you. I have to agree with masterofgo again, you don't seem to understand why people practice philosophy. Do you have any interest in the nature of identity, whether or not we have free will or any of the metaphysical mysteries of life? It's really hard to imagine somebody not wanting to think about these things simply because it doesn't affect their daily lives.

masterofgo said:
This is still just completely illogical. Philosophy does not necessarily exist to be "used."

I think your claim that a fictional work must have something that tethers it to real world application is ridiculous. Fiction has no obligation to do such a thing.

It is like you discard any notion of pure aestheticism in favor of a world where fiction is merely just practical philosophizing and thematics.

TheBrainintheJar said:


But thinking about these specific DO affect my daily lives and how I view the world. Identity is important to how I perceive myself. If I know my identity is more fluid or more solid, it affects how I act. In a world where people's identities can easily be switched, it drastically affects the relationship.

For example, the person behind your user can be mutliple people. It's possible I'm not talking to a single person but a different person every time under 'merryfistmas'. Identity is a big deal. Free will is a big deal - pretty much everyone lives under the assumption we have free will.

My 'practical implications', I don't mean something ultra-direct, 'I use this idea and get lots of cash'. I just need a way to connect it to life and to other ideas (Philosophies are always in interaction). I couldn't form that connection with the specifically philosophy you laid out earlier. Of course, I also know very little about metaphysics. It's not as if I'm going to write it all off immediately. Every idea deserves a chance and if I didn't understand it, I'll ask for another explanation

merryfistmas said:


But how do things things effect your life? I know the topic of free will doesn't effect mine. I don't believe we have free will, but I'm not going to alter my decision making to reflect that. I'm going to continue living as if I do have free will because that is the useful way to live my life. Even if we were to somehow prove beyond all doubt that the world was strictly deterministic it wouldn't change the way we perceive it, we still have the illusion of autonomy. It's interesting to think about, but that's it. As far as identity goes, I was referring more to defining it. What makes Brain Brain? IF all of our cells are replaced every 7 years (or however long, I don't remember the exact figure and I get different answers from different people anyway, but that's no important) then is the you of today still the you of 7 years ago? Most people would say yes without hesitation, and having spoken to many people about this, the common view point seems to be that memories, or psychological continuity is the deciding factor. But what if you get amnesia? What if Scotty beams you in Star Trek? In the first case, psychological continuity is lost yet very few people would argue that the person with amnesia is fundamentally different than their former self. In the case of the latter, you're cells information is recorded and your body destroyed, the data is sent somewhere and a new "you" is created. Would they retain psychological continuity? or would it be a new person, indistinguishable from the previous? Most who believe in a god or have some sort of spirituality think that you would essentially be dead, as a soul can't be copied. But for those who don't attribute consciousness to a higher being, would the emergent consciousness be experienced through "your" eyes? would there even be in emergent consciousness?

And this brings us back to Serial Experiments Lain.

Keep in mind these are just my thoughts on the show and I am not positing with absolute certainty that this is what happened and what it means.

As humans, we understand the world by trying to define it. We put things in boxes and draw arbitrary lines and say "this is okay, and this is not". We categorize one group of abnormal humans as schizophrenic, and another as depressed. These definitions, down to where we draw the line are arbitrary, there is no definite "you", there isn't something that is absolutely a hamburger and not a pizza. The vomit on your sweater is only mom's spaghetti because humanity as a collective calls it mom's spaghetti.

This is what makes Lain so fascinating to me. It creates a world in which all of the constructs fall apart and that is why it's hard to understand. There is no distinction between the real and the virtual, between physical and metaphysical, and between one Lain and another. The only reason we can call one Lain the "original" is because it is told from her perspective throughout the show.

True, it does resemble Eraserhead very much in it's directing, but Lain was "confusing" because the subject matter itself is something that can only be explored through a mind bending LSD experience. At least, that's what some people call it. It's mind bending because metaphysics is mind bending, it's difficult to wrap your head around. Eraserhead on the other hand, simply succeeded in grossing me out for 90 minutes. I'm not implying that Eraserhead had nothing to say, but I feel the same way about the film that you do about Lain and Tex. Firstly, why does it need an especially weird narrative style to convey it's ideas? (this will require us to discuss what we got out of it, which we should probably do elsewhere), and second, why did you find Eraserhead's confusion to be "rich" enough, but not the others. Finally, all of your criticisms of Tex apply to Eraserhead as well, but to a far greater magnitude.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic, I hope that all made sense.