In Media Res

(Note - this post was inspired by the latest anime news network podcast, and the responses it garnered in the ANN forums.  Apologies on the lack of quality.)

In Media Res is a storytelling technique as old as storytelling itself.  Such longetivity suggests that it is also an effective technique, which I would agree with.  It also means that it can and will be used improperly. 

I'm no literary scholar, but in my experience, the best stories which start In Media Res are the ones which aren't largely hindered by it.  To put it another way, you shouldn't be confused as to what is happening now because you're missing out on events that happened before.  A little bit of explanation, and you should be on your way.  Later on, the story can fill in some of the gaps, to add more weight or depth to a character or conflict, but in the meantime it should still stand on its own two feet.  If you ever read an excerpt from the Iliad or The Aenid back in high school, your textbook probably spent a few sentences explaining what you missed out on.  With that alone, you can gleam a hell of a lot from the passages you're actually given to read.  That, to me, is good use of In Media Res.

As for more modern examples, there are quite a few, but for the sake of this post's main topic I'm actually going to use a video game - Dragon Quest 8.  When the game begins, the hero and his companion are escorting a goblin in a horse drawn cart.  We quickly learn that the goblin is a king, and the horse his daughter, and that the hero is trying to help lift the curse which was placed on the two by a court jester in possession of a magic staff.  It isn't until much later in the game that we discover how the curse was placed on them, or how the jester turned evil, but until that point, these details don't matter.  The information we are given is more than enough to justify the quest, and the back story is filled in only after we've been with the characters long enough for those details to have any sort of impact.  Dragon Quest 8 isn't a complex story, but in terms of using In Media Res, we don't lose anything by starting in the middle, and the flashbacks to the past actually sweeten the pot.

In contrast, I consider it bad use of the technique when the reader/viewer is ignorant of critical information as a result of starting in the middle.  There will be references to events, characters, terminologies, or important events which the viewer has no clue about, even though they need to in order to comprehend the story.  The viewer ends up having to wait for the flashbacks and exposition to kick in in order to piece it all together.  A entire rereading/viewing may even be in order. 

I'm not going to say that this latter method has no merit, but it isn't easy to do well.  There's a difference between sprinkling in a little mystery to keep us on edge, and creating something purposefully obtuse.  Unfortunately, this method is used extensively in anime (and anime inspired games), and while the fans on a whole have no problem with it, I think it leads to shitty storytelling more often than not.  I know it is tacky to slam others, but I think that for a lot of anime fans, the appeal lies in the fact that they believe that if a show takes them a lot of time to decipher, then it must be complex and deep, and that their ability to decode it is an indicator of their intelligence.  In other words, it is more proof that Western anime fandom is fuelled by ego more than anything.  These people don't seem to comprehend the possibility that the confusion is the result of bad writing and plotting.

But allow me to turn away from attacks and focus on why I prefer the other, more clearer method of In Media Res.  I don't think you can really analyze and appreciate the depth of a story until you understand, at the most basic level, what it is about.  In order to really appreciate a dialogue exchange, you need to know why it is taking place.  In order to be shocked at a character's actions, you need to know something about them.  There's this pervading sensibility among otaku that a story is only good if you have to put it together like a puzzle.  I think it is this same sensibility which causes them to assume that anyone who says they "simply want to be entertained" by media is a plebe  looking for mindless distraction.  To use another tired example (sorry), Shakespeare's plays aren't terribly confusing, but watching one of his plays being performed by skilled actors is still dammed entertaining, because they generate so much excitement and emotion.  That's still entertainment, and it is far from mindless. 

I guess, for me, there's a difference between a work that rewards you for paying attention, and one which plays games and rewards me for putting up with it.  I like when a work makes me think, but a good one will make me want to think, because I am already interested in what I see, and want to dig deeper.  It shouldn't make me have to think because that's the only way I'll get anything out of it.  I don't need my ego stroked, nor do I want to stroke the author's.

TL:DR - I wish fucking anime fans would stop throwing around literary devices to excuse bad shows, and actually ponder whether the show used any of them effectively.

Gundam

I have been trying to like Gundam for years. It hasn't been easy. There are many reasons why Gundam is legendary, but those reasons aren't inherent traits of the franchise. It can be just reliably schlocky as any other sci fi anime, perhaps moreso than fans care to admit. Enjoying Gundam requires some work, not so much in finding it (DVD's are easy enough to locate online), but in parsing through choppy dialogue, discovering crucial supplementary material, and in some cases, accepting some plain old bullshit in order to appreciate the good stuff. It isn't always easy, or acceptable, but for some reason, my mind has been twisted into believing that it is worthwhile.


Over the next few weeks (months?), I'll be posting all sorts of musings about Gundam, as I try to watch not one, but three different series, and offer my take on them all.

Chicago

Chicago is one of the most commercially successful bands in modern American music, one that has been running continuously in some form or another for decades. But the Chicago of today (of the last thirty plus years, really) is nothing like the group in its original incarnation. The band that eventually became known for love ballads and Lite FM radio began in the late 60's by a bunch of young hippies eager to play experimental, politically charged jazz/rock fusion.


What, then, caused their eventual shift in tone? There are many factors, but the catalyst was the loss of what is arguably the heart and soul of the band, Guitarist Terry Kath. Kath was incredibly skilled with his instrument, drawing praise from even the likes of Jimi Hendrix. His experimental performances and soulful voice dominated the band's earliest albums. Unfortunately, he was also a lover of firearms and drugs, which lead to him accidentally shooting himself in the head in the late 1970's. The band would try to move on, and would eventually land even greater success than they had in Kath's lifetime, but musically and artistically, they would never be the same again.

Most Chicago fans I have read agree that this era of "Classic Chicago" ends with Kath's death, but many would argue that the quality of their output went downhill sometime earlier. How much earlier varies from person to person. For some, Chicago is worth listening to through their first seven records. Others stop after five. Even fewer like only their first two, and I've even seen purists who only care about their debut release.

I too prefer the early albums, though I haven’t listened to enough of them to say where my cutoff point is (I’m going to guess it won’t go past their 10th album). At the same time, I can appreciate some of their later pop hits, if only as a guilty pleasure used sparingly.

Here are a few fun facts for anyone interested in the band’s discography:

- One of Chicago’s early band names was “Chicago Transit Authority”, which they had to shorten once the real CTA told them to do so. However, they managed to get their first album out before the name change. If you ever see an blue/yellow album cover with the title “Chicago Transit Authority”, know that it isn’t another band, or a weird aberration. It’s the band’s first record, and one of the few that I consider a must own.

- The band's releases are organized using a loose numbering system. Both their original works and compliations fall under this system, and there have been quite a few Greatest Hits works over the years. This is why you can walk into a music store and see a CD labeled Chicago 30.

Lots of anime

Yes, lots of anime out or coming out.  I'm currently watching FMA Brotherhood Vol. 2, FMA Classic, and Eden of the East.  The Trigun boxset is out now, the second (and final) set of FMA Classic will be too, and there's still some Gundam product I need to scoop up before it's too late.  Guess it's a good time to be a fan.

Addendum to last post

The Lennon remaster CD's have a specific URL on the back - johnlennon.com/70.  That's a sign that you aren't supposed to just go to the official site, but to a specfic part of the site specifically made for the release.    Here's what I found after following the URL:

1) The site isn't finished yet.
2) You won't be able to access it at all without having bought one of the bigger box sets or the deluxe edition of the new Greatest Hits disc. 

So if you're one to simply buy a few of the albums, the site becomes not an extra level of value, but a paywall, and that link becomes not supplemental, but advertising.  The cynicism only adds up.

John Lennon Remasters

Slightly more than a year ago, the Beatles album remasters were released.  At the time, I felt like I did as a child during Christmas time, actively counting down the days until launch (when I remembered to do so, of course).  It was a happy time, but deep down I knew there was a more cynical, capitalist angle to the event. It reminded us that no other band can quite get away as easily with charging premium prices for their material, nor can any other band quite dictate how it will be presented.  It is a bit maddening to know that you can't buy the mono remasters as single albums, and even more maddening to know that the Mono box set costs more money for less music. There's no point in asking why any of this is the case.  Paul McCartney will Force choke you and answer "Fuck you, that's why" (I say this lovingly). The fact that I was missing about half their discography was reason enough to plunk down, but when I see cranky old timers bitch about having to (or at least being asked to) constantly rebuy old music, I understand where they're coming from.


I can say, however, that my cynicism shield only exists for my favorite band of all time.  I know this because I can't muster it for the band member's solo works.  This week will mark the 70th birthday of John Lennon, and to celebrate the event, his entire catalog of solo work has been given the same remastering treatment that was used for the Beatles, right down to using the same alternating black/white album spines, and a giant, expensive boxset.  I went out and immediately bought two of the records, but I have no strong interest beyond that.

But it's more than a lack of interest.  I really feel that heavy air of cynicism around these remasters.  This article on the Guardian spells it out perfectly.  In short, much of the merchandising and branding of the man runs contrary to what he believed in, or at least, what we tell ourselves he believed in.  Additionally, the man was not a saint, and his post Beatles output often fell flat. I've seen some of this material get ripped on with a ferocity that no other rock legend tends to receive, even for their worst work.  Solo Lennon can be shitty, just like shitty solo McCartney can be. 


What does it mean, then, that there's an entire box set of this thoroughly uneven work?  It might mean that some revisionist cobbled up liner note material that tries to put the album Rock 'N Roll in the same Pantheon as Plastic Ono Band (though maybe it isn't so kind?)


What does it mean that there is a new greatest hits CD made for this remastering project?  For one, it certainly means that Lennon's solo work isn't considered as sacred as the Beatles catalog, which will probably never see another compilation CD ever again.  More importantly, there's already a fantastic hits disc which they could have worked with.  The fact that it was left behind shows a greater concern for marketing than on making a definitive compilation. 


And hey, there's some other component of the release - a box set compilation, containing CD's that organize the material based on themes, or some vague logic like that.  Again, I see this as a lack of confidence.  Not many fans will want all the albums, but maybe they want a decent chunk.  But maybe that means that even a selection of the full albums isn't quite enough... 


What I'm taking away from all of this is reinforcement of a growing feeling of mine, that the public at large has an odd dual relationship with John Lennon.  We revere him at the same time we consider him human.  We praise his great work with more gusto than we point out his failures.  We try to make positives out of the fact that he was frequently an asshole.  Maybe people are simply trying to hold on thee ideal they have formed in their minds, since Lennon isn't here to personally reshape their opinions. I think most of us know that we continue to be intrigued by the man at the same time that he frustrates us.  Perhaps that alone ensures his infamy. 


Look forward to some album reviews, hopefully.

Perl

I've spent some time at work finally learning Perl.  When I first looked at the language back in college, I was turned off immediately.  Now I understand what the problem was, and it is the same reason why the language has such a strong following. Perl's basic features and syntax are safe and straightforward.  A Java programmer can look at it and have a decent idea as to what's going on.  But Perl is also incredibly flexible.  If you want to do something, you can probably do it several different ways.  You can make a Perl program easy to read, or fast, or compact - whatever your tastes are as a programmer, the language will accommodate. This is what makes it so well loved, but it can also make it difficult to learn without the proper materials.

I also think there's another, more subtle psychological element to the way Perl works. To me, it strikes a happy middle ground between the various schools of thought about how a language should behave.  A few days after writing that last sentence, I came across a Perl book containing the closest thing the language has to a motto:  "Simple things should be simple, difficult things should be possible".

I guess I wasn't that far off. I think that is a great way to explain Perl.  There is an incredible amount of different ways to use the language, but you don't have to use any of them if you don't want, or more likely, don't need to.  And if you want to stick with the basics, there's no penalty.  It's refreshing to see a programming language that isn't trying to shove a religion-like belief system down your throat.  It can be frustrating to see object oriented languages which are so obsessed with making everything into a class that the simple act of opening a file requires six import statements and a method call that looks like

We.Don't.Want.You.To.Get.Any.Work.Done.FileReader.FileBuffer.LayeredBuffer.LayeredNachos.OpenStream(AndYouThoughtTheArgumentListWouldBeSmall);

On the other hand, there are a lot of small, fast functional languages that decide that you need a million data types, each of which uses every brace and bracket on the keyboard for different results.  Apparently, it isn't enough to have arrays. You also need lists (also nice), tuples (wtf?), and god knows what else.  And if you ever read the documentation for these things, they make it sound as if every exception and difference makes perfect sense.  Back in college, my friend Joe and I were frustrated with the fact that every time we asked what a certain concept was in our Hardware Engineering course, the answer was always "oh, it's just a 4-to-1 Mux", as if either of us knew what the hell that was at the time.  That's what these "whizbang" little languages remind me of (though to be honest, we should have known what a multiplexer was back then).

There's another great quote from the Perl book, paraphrased here - "you can do just about anything you need with a hash".  Amen to that.

PS - the crack at OO Languages above is more due to my time with .NET languages.  Say what you will about Java, but it lets you get to core classes very quickly.