Interesting Thoughts from Miyazaki

[Maokun]

That's something I owe to a webcomic called "A Modest Destiny". It's author "squidi" is (or was, it seems he's making an honest effort to cut down on it) the kind of internet inhabitant that only can be described with an expeletive, but I came to know that only long time after getting hooked on his webcomic. Then I learned it is totally posible to separate the work from its author, if the author allows it to be an independient expression of his imagination and not a vehicle to push his personal agenda. I believe that's the case with Miyasaki and it's not a rare thing amongst creative geniuses. You would probably not guess Beethoven's temperament by hearing most of his beautiful symphonies or Oscar Wilde's inclinations by reading The Happy Prince or the Selfish Giant.

[Nate]

Even if the author is using the work to be a vehicle for his personal agenda, you still can see what you want to in the work. To think that a work is defined by the creator is what's known as the "author fallacy." The purpose the creator had when they created the work, and their personal thoughts may be interesting, but the work exists outside the creator. It's independent of them, and people are perfectly able to draw their own meanings from things.

Best illustrated by Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, which for years was held as an example of why censorship is bad. Until thirty or forty years later when in an interview Ray Bradbury said "You idiots, it's not about censorship at all, it's about how television will make people dumber!" So is everyone in the past who said it was about censorship wrong? Well, no. It's certainly interesting what Bradbury's purpose behind writing it was, but if someone thinks it's more about censorship, then that's valid. As long as you have support for your viewpoint, it's not invalid.

If I want to believe Crime and Punishment is about how peanut butter causes mental illness, it's a valid interpretation as long as I can provide facts from the book to support it.

[minakichan]

To think that a work is defined by the creator is what's known as the "author fallacy." The purpose the creator had when they created the work, and their personal thoughts may be interesting, but the work exists outside the creator. It's independent of them, and people are perfectly able to draw their own meanings from things.

...

If I want to believe Crime and Punishment is about how peanut butter causes mental illness, it's a valid interpretation as long as I can provide facts from the book to support it.

This reminds me of any argument fujoshi make about their favorite yaoi pairings XD;

[Etoh*the*Greato]

I'd also cite the case of Wall-E, wherein the creators said it was about humanity losing the ability to form connections with one-another, where the rest of the world got an environmental and anti-fat message out of it.


[quote="minakichan (post: 1344311)"]This reminds me of any argument fujoshi make about their favorite yaoi pairings XD]


"Love is never wrong!" Except when it totally is. XD

[uc pseudonym]

I was planning not to post in this topic, but now I feel obligated to comment on the original subject. Basically, I disagree with Miyazaki on many levels and feel his criticisms of modern society stem more from resistance to change than rational analysis of those changes.

That's something I owe to a webcomic called "A Modest Destiny". It's author "squidi" is (or was, it seems he's making an honest effort to cut down on it) the kind of internet inhabitant that only can be described with an expeletive, but I came to know that only long time after getting hooked on his webcomic.

I haven't thought about AMD in years. When he quit I stopped reading, but Wikipedia informs me that he later changed his mind. That's unfortunate, because while I thought it was a cut above many webcomics, I don't think I'll go to the effort of getting back into it after so much time.

Even if the author is using the work to be a vehicle for his personal agenda, you still can see what you want to in the work. To think that a work is defined by the creator is what's known as the "author fallacy." The purpose the creator had when they created the work, and their personal thoughts may be interesting, but the work exists outside the creator. It's independent of them, and people are perfectly able to draw their own meanings from things.

Best illustrated by Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, which for years was held as an example of why censorship is bad. Until thirty or forty years later when in an interview Ray Bradbury said "You idiots, it's not about censorship at all, it's about how television will make people dumber!" So is everyone in the past who said it was about censorship wrong? Well, no. It's certainly interesting what Bradbury's purpose behind writing it was, but if someone thinks it's more about censorship, then that's valid. As long as you have support for your viewpoint, it's not invalid.

Normally the authorial fallacy is high on my list of pet peeves, but as you stated it right now I don't really have a problem with it. Anyone who wants to discuss a text from evidence within the text is alright in my book. It's just that this same argument has often been used by those who say, "No words mean anything, so texts have no meaning."

The interesting thing is that when I first read Fahrenheit 451, I was struck by how much it seemed to be about other themes. For example, there are meaningless and destructive forms of entertainment, and the reason that books are burned is because the ideas they contain make people think. Clearly there's a lot of overlap with all of this and censorship, so I've always been surprised that Bradbury objects so harshly to some interpretations, but I think I see what he means.

[Maokun]

Even if the author is using the work to be a vehicle for his personal agenda, you still can see what you want to in the work. To think that a work is defined by the creator is what's known as the "author fallacy." The purpose the creator had when they created the work, and their personal thoughts may be interesting, but the work exists outside the creator. It's independent of them, and people are perfectly able to draw their own meanings from things.

Best illustrated by Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, which for years was held as an example of why censorship is bad. Until thirty or forty years later when in an interview Ray Bradbury said "You idiots, it's not about censorship at all, it's about how television will make people dumber!" So is everyone in the past who said it was about censorship wrong? Well, no. It's certainly interesting what Bradbury's purpose behind writing it was, but if someone thinks it's more about censorship, then that's valid. As long as you have support for your viewpoint, it's not invalid.

If I want to believe Crime and Punishment is about how peanut butter causes mental illness, it's a valid interpretation as long as I can provide facts from the book to support it.

Oh yes, you are right. I added the "agenda" exception because at that moment it came to my mind "His Dark Materials" trilogy where the author almost compromised the narrative to push his hatred for the Chronicles of Narnia and Christianity. I believe that any artistic manifestation, coming from the heart, must be a work of love, not of hate. Heinlein, for example, is just as preachy, but you don't get that antagonizing and mocking vibe from him.

When you watch a movie by Miyasaki, you won't be able to see his contempt for modern gadgets or for pop-culturization. You'll see his passion for flight and aviation, his love for the freedom of the youth and for the open country, etc. So, it saddens me a bit that some people allows his personal views to hinder their enjoyment of his work. Yes, I'll say it openly now, the guy is a jerk (for more proof look into the violent opposition and arguing he presented against his son to become an animator as well) but that doesn't make his movies are anything less amazing. As a matter of fact, when you watch one of his movies, I believe you get a window to the better part of him. That part which he is not capable to express in his daily behaviour buried, for reasons unbeknownst to us, under his bitterness and resentment.

It is a common mistake to look up at entertainment icons as moral or ethical beacons and become dissappointed when they prove not to be one. Miyasaki's own views on these matters (which he spoke out after being asked about them in an interview) are his and his only. He did not intend to shove them down our throats and while we can disagree with him, we should not hold them against him, or even less, against his work.

I haven't thought about AMD in years. When he quit I stopped reading, but Wikipedia informs me that he later changed his mind. That's unfortunate, because while I thought it was a cut above many webcomics, I don't think I'll go to the effort of getting back into it after so much time.

Yeah, I'd totally recommend you get back into it, as it kept being excelent -and you really don't need to start from the beginning, as long as you have a faint memory of the events of the first mega arc, you can start fresh from the Fluffy arc, which started not too long before he quit- but sadly, it is on hiatus again and, once again, there's a chance that it will not come back. I check it monthly, so I'll let you know if at any point he decides to finish the darn thing. (He went into hiatus on what I think is the last stretch.)

[The Banner]

"To Strauss the composer I take off my hat; to Strauss the man I put it back on again."
-Arturo Toscanini

Perhaps you'd all relate to this quote.

[Roy Mustang]

So, it saddens me a bit that some people allows his personal views to hinder their enjoyment of his work.

I hate to say this, but I'm don't let his personal views hinder my enjoyment of his works. I just not a big fan of his works and there is very few movies of him that I like and IMO most of his movies are overrated and people need to stop thinking that he is some kind of god of anime making. This is all I have to say in this thread.


[color="Red"][font="Book Antiqua"]Col. Roy Mustang
[/font][/color]

[Nate]

I added the "agenda" exception because at that moment it came to my mind "His Dark Materials" trilogy where the author almost compromised the narrative to push his hatred for the Chronicles of Narnia and Christianity.

True. And as difficult as it may be, some people may even be able to read the final book of that trilogy and not get an anti-religion message from it. In fact, that has even happened, a few prominent Christian figures have praised the books, saying that they find it to be a condemnation of legalism and the use of religion as a tool to oppress people, but not a condemnation of Christianity itself.

I believe that any artistic manifestation, coming from the heart, must be a work of love, not of hate.

I don't agree with this, as hate can produce some pretty powerful things. It's not like hate is a bad thing. I don't think anyone here would think that say, hatred of injustice would be wrong, and if someone wrote a book about that hatred, or painted a picture inspired by that hatred, then it might be very powerful and moving.

It may also look like the work of a stark-raving madman, but that's beside the point.

[Fish and Chips]

I don't agree with this, as hate can produce some pretty powerful things. It's not like hate is a bad thing. I don't think anyone here would think that say, hatred of injustice would be wrong, and if someone wrote a book about that hatred, or painted a picture inspired by that hatred, then it might be very powerful and moving.

Victor Hugo loves this thread.