I have no problem realizing what the books "are", nor do I discount Drazen's text simply because it's been seven years since he wrote it. I think a lot of what he has to say remains applicable and valuable. My complaint was that what I wanted, I realized I wouldn't get from his text. This is not a complaint about his text, per se, so much as recognition that he's not a valuable resource for my specific need at this time.
As for Napier, no, she doesn't get that kind of pass, and she may have been the first in English to be writing of anime, but hardly the first overall (and I make that note because I don't like treading even accidentally into privileging english-language as the only valid standard). In fact, one could say that given Buruma also discusses anime, along with manga, in his treatises, that Napier isn't even the first. Beyond that, however, neither Napier or Buruma are the first to discuss popular culture, in either a literary/filmic sense or in a sociological sense. By those standards, Napier falls flat, and I think to some degree this is because she's hiding under the cloak of "this is completely different!" or some such, and using that as means to bypass the expectations and standards of previous writings/debates on popular culture in film, literature, or society.
After all, one does not have to be a movie critic, or a literary analyst, to realize that if one is positing that a specific filmic or literary text indicates a significant pop culture position, that one should also demonstrate to some degree the depth/breadth of this text's implications, either in terms of the single text's impact on pop culture, or in repetition of its themes in other aspects of pop culture. Certainly, if she's simply discussing a single text independent of pop culture, then it doesn't matter if a text has any resonance within pop culture -- but as she frames so much of her work within the context of pop culture then it makes no sense, and undermines her conclusions, to abruptly disregard pop culture when it suits her purposes.
Even those really sidelined sociological discussions of pop culture -- like mod-kids in Britain in the 60s, or the influence of the Beatles on American rock, or whatever other pop culture element you choose -- must first recognize that to be pop culture, it needs to be popular. A single song that, say, encourages and fetishizes bowling is not indicative of a major pop culture theme if only three people heard the song, and two of them didn't even like it. Find another song that enshrines bowling that is a major pop-culture phenomenon and then make the argument; otherwise, the arguments are irrelevant because they're not reflecting a popular element of the culture. Two kids walking in and singing a verse may be an intriguing incident, but it takes a whole lotta people walking in and singing a verse before it becomes a (popular) movement.
No, I don't give Napier any credit at all, seeing how often she pulls that stunt. Just because the topic has changed doesn't mean you can gleefully toss out the academic and intellectual rigors of the previous fifty-plus years of sociological and literary analysis styles on pop culture artifacts.
no subject
Date: 17 Jun 2010 07:44 pm (UTC)As for Napier, no, she doesn't get that kind of pass, and she may have been the first in English to be writing of anime, but hardly the first overall (and I make that note because I don't like treading even accidentally into privileging english-language as the only valid standard). In fact, one could say that given Buruma also discusses anime, along with manga, in his treatises, that Napier isn't even the first. Beyond that, however, neither Napier or Buruma are the first to discuss popular culture, in either a literary/filmic sense or in a sociological sense. By those standards, Napier falls flat, and I think to some degree this is because she's hiding under the cloak of "this is completely different!" or some such, and using that as means to bypass the expectations and standards of previous writings/debates on popular culture in film, literature, or society.
After all, one does not have to be a movie critic, or a literary analyst, to realize that if one is positing that a specific filmic or literary text indicates a significant pop culture position, that one should also demonstrate to some degree the depth/breadth of this text's implications, either in terms of the single text's impact on pop culture, or in repetition of its themes in other aspects of pop culture. Certainly, if she's simply discussing a single text independent of pop culture, then it doesn't matter if a text has any resonance within pop culture -- but as she frames so much of her work within the context of pop culture then it makes no sense, and undermines her conclusions, to abruptly disregard pop culture when it suits her purposes.
Even those really sidelined sociological discussions of pop culture -- like mod-kids in Britain in the 60s, or the influence of the Beatles on American rock, or whatever other pop culture element you choose -- must first recognize that to be pop culture, it needs to be popular. A single song that, say, encourages and fetishizes bowling is not indicative of a major pop culture theme if only three people heard the song, and two of them didn't even like it. Find another song that enshrines bowling that is a major pop-culture phenomenon and then make the argument; otherwise, the arguments are irrelevant because they're not reflecting a popular element of the culture. Two kids walking in and singing a verse may be an intriguing incident, but it takes a whole lotta people walking in and singing a verse before it becomes a (popular) movement.
No, I don't give Napier any credit at all, seeing how often she pulls that stunt. Just because the topic has changed doesn't mean you can gleefully toss out the academic and intellectual rigors of the previous fifty-plus years of sociological and literary analysis styles on pop culture artifacts.