Do people overstate Toriyama’s skills as a subversive writer?

[WittyUsername]

Edit: Nevermind. Forget I asked this. I wasn’t thinking much when I wrote this.

[KBABZ]

...didn't we recently have one of these?

[Matches Malone]

Overall yes. The way Toriyama worked wasn't that different from how other mangaka work. Fans tend to bring up a lot the fact that the way the Androids/Cell arcs progressed was due to editorial involvement, but so was the introduction of Uchiha Sasuke in Naruto. Kishimoto never intended on having such a character in his story, he was suggested to him by his editor and ended up becoming the 2nd most important character in the story. Fans also bring up how Toriyama never planned ahead, but he said that he was already thinking about Namek during the 23rd Tenkaichi, before even the Saiyan arc. The final thing I want to bring up is "Subverting expectations", which I don't think applies to the original manga. I don't know how that was used 20+ years ago, but today, that's a polite way of saying bad writing.

[PurestEvil]

..."Subverting expectations", which I don't think applies to the original manga. I don't know how that was used 20+ years ago, but today, that's a polite way of saying bad writing.

I am pretty sure it is a neutral term that describes writing device involving a plot element that contradicts the audience's initial impression.
Like, say, Goku being a kid who was strong enough to fight armies, Android 8 actually being a sweetheart, Yajirobe being a fast runner despite his belly size, an old guy like Shen fighting in the tournament, the monstrous Buu being a fat, naive, baby, etc etc

[Matches Malone]

I am pretty sure it is a neutral term that describes writing device involving a plot element that contradicts the audience's initial impression.

It seems like now it's used to excuse bad writing. I've seen it used in games (mass effect 3), comics (King's Batman & Bendis' Superman), Star wars, game of thrones, modern DB, etc. I know it's meant to be used as a way to describe people being surprised by certain plots, but it seems that more often than not, it's used to justify bad writing.

[PurestEvil]

I am pretty sure it is a neutral term that describes writing device involving a plot element that contradicts the audience's initial impression.

It seems like now it's used to excuse bad writing. I've seen it used in games (mass effect 3), comics (King's Batman & Bendis' Superman), Star wars, game of thrones, modern DB, etc. I know it's meant to be used as a way to describe people being surprised by certain plots, but it seems that more often than not, it's used to justify bad writing.

Can't dispute this.

[Paulo Gabriel]

It’s universally agreed on this website that Akira Toriyama is an unconventional writer who likes playing around with what people might expect from the story. With that said, how much of that is him legitimately trying to be unconventional, and how much is either the result of editorial demand or him not planning ahead?

To give an example, some might consider the constant bait and switches in the Cell arc to be an example of Toriyama subverting people’s expectations, but those weren’t intentional. He was just following the requests of his editors.

I think so! Toriyama is certainly imaginative, but his stories don't have the kind of complexity that would warrant something such as ''legitimately trying to be unconventional'' or acting as a ''subersive writer'' for that matter.

[jjgp1112]

I mean Toriyama himself has said he's tried to do the opposite of what fans expected him to do :shrugs:

[MasenkoHA]

These seems like completely unrelated things.

Usually when fans talk about Toriyama subverting expectations it’s things like “after getting bulkier and bigger and then turning into a xenomorph knock off Freeza’s final form is diminutive and not much more imposing than his first form” “Vegeta is far more powerful than Nappa despite being like two feet shorter” “this racist minstrel show simpleton is actually much stronger than Goku who just defeated Piccolo Daimao”

Things shaped by Toriyama’s lack of planning or editorial influence aren’t usually what lead to subverting expectations.

"Subverting expectations", which I don't think applies to the original manga. I don't know how that was used 20+ years ago, but today, that's a polite way of saying bad writing.

I have never in my life seen that phrase used in anything other than a positive way. Usually in the context of “X story subverts the expectations of x genre”

[Matches Malone]

I have never in my life seen that phrase used in anything other than a positive way. Usually in the context of “X story subverts the expectations of x genre”

It seems like now it's used to excuse bad writing. I've seen it used in games (mass effect 3), comics (King's Batman & Bendis' Superman), Star wars, game of thrones, modern DB, etc. I know it's meant to be used in a positive way, but nowadays it's used to justify bad writing.

[WittyUsername]

...didn't we recently have one of these?

Did we? If so, then I guess it would be fair to lock this thread.

[Zephyr]

Well hopefully I get this post in before it gets locked.

---

One thing to consider is that Toriyama is a laughsmith. He's a funny-man. He draws gags, jokes, and shitposts. If you've ever tried to make someone laugh, you know that to some extent, you need to be able to track what they are anticipating, so that you can subvert that. The subversion creates an incongruity, an absurdity, which the reader, viewer, listeners, etc. will find amusement in.

Another thing to consider is that Toriyama is a procrastinator. He is lazy. And, yet, he was onboard with drawing weekly manga. I feel like I can kinda relate to Toriyama as a storyteller. I myself am a procrastinator. I was a DM for a Dungeons & Dragons campaign with some friends, and I regretted it almost immediately: we would often go through a session's planned material too quickly, or things wouldn't go as I had planned, and I would have to improvise. Oftentimes still, I would find myself unmotivated to work on planning the next week's session up until the last minute. This meant that I would often have to think up new material for my players to explore and encounter while we were playing. Now, my friends and I have always played D&D with the intent of having laughs, almost more than enjoying the mechanics of the game. And, so, I would include all sorts of references to TV shows, movies, games, etc. that we were all familiar with. This, and the desire to make them laugh above all else, made improvisation rather enjoyable in its own right, despite the stress. My point is that I can sort of empathize with Toriyama's approach to storytelling. It's effectively standup comedy, on a weekly basis, vicariously by way of another medium entirely (be it comics, or tabletop RPGs).

That Dragon Ball manages to consistently make me laugh still, I think, speaks to Toriyama's skill at having his hand on the audience's pulse, and knowing, a great lot of the time, when to do something out of left field. Doesn't mean he's flawless at it. Nobody would be. Maybe people do overstate his skills at subverting expectations, but even if so, he's still at least pretty skilled at it.

---

I also don't think "subverting expectations" is an excuse for "bad writing". I think it's a description. Peoples' expectations being subverted is not only a function of the author keeping track of said expectations, but it is also a function of those very expectations to begin with. By having certain expectations, a listener or reader has certain things they are looking for, specific phenomena they are trying to detect. These expectations can be said to be subverted when this phenomena is deliberately left absent by the author, as a result of its expectation (also by the author).

With Dragon Ball, I think, people are often simply looking at it with evaluative standards ill-fit to its ontology, stuck casting and framing the piece in subpar light. In such instances what is occurring instead is the phenomena being absent not as a result of its expectation, but in spite of it. That is to say, people not expecting a spiritual successor to Dr. Slump which models itself on Journey to the West, Jackie Chan films, and Fist of the North Star to feature characters comically endangering all of life or existence or whatever for a good bout to prove some dumb point about their approach to and execution of kung-fu, is like not expecting chocolate, or strawberry, or vanilla, in Neapolitan ice cream. People take it to task for being itself, rather than for how well it performs at being itself.

This is because "bad writing, as such" is conceptually problematic in the first place. Different kinds of stories have different kinds of goals. Different goals feature different obstacles, and their failure will constitute different things. We need to widen our understanding of what art is. A rudimentary understanding of Aristotle's "Four Causes" would be helpful in developing a richer ontology of art:



1. Insofar as we may wish to assign some universal goal common to all forms of "storytelling" or "writing", then that would be the "Final Cause". Is it to hold our attention, to distract and entertain us? To teach us by way of parable? Already assigning something here proves troublesome. But I see often enough that the former is the "function" of storytelling in nerd fandoms ("I just want to shut my brain off after work and be entertained!"), so we might go with that. Anthropologically, though, I'd wager that its original "function" was teaching. Whatever, it can vary depending on the work! Specifically, we know that Torishima wanted Dragon Ball to be of the former type, as opposed to Fist of the North Star, which was of the latter type. "It's too preachy", etc.

2. The "Material Cause" is the stuff that the work is made out of. The medium. In Dragon Ball's case, this is comic books. Manga. Dragon Ball is comprised of drawings, inside panels, featuring speech and narration, inside of bubbles and boxes. Illustration and text. Paneling. Etc.

3. The "Formal Cause" is the style of the work. Which existing movements and threads and forms it imitates. Genre, if you will. Having "Efficient Cause" and "Material Cause" in common with Dr. Slump makes Dragon Ball very stylistically reminiscent of Dr. Slump's form. Journey to the West, Jackie Chan films (such as Snake in the Eagle's Shadow and Drunken Master), and Fist of the North Star mark the next closest stylistic resemblances. This tells us what sorts of moods that the work possesses, and what sorts of settings and window dressing the work possesses, by way of this imitation.

4. The "Efficient Cause" is, naturally, the author. The creator. (s). You're going to get a different story depending on who tells it. You're going to get a different comic, depending on who draws it. A different piece of music depending on who writes it. And so on. In Dragon Ball's case, that is Toriyama, mainly, with his three editors leaving their own clear distinct mark on the story during their tenure in the position. If we wish to include Dragon Ball's cultural origins, then it lies here, in the cultural backdrop of its author(s), who are all Japanese. Toriyama, himself, though, as noted above, is a procrastinator.

---

With a localization into another language, or an adaptation into another medium, we add more to these "Causes". In adapting something to a new language, that translator is an additional layer to the "Efficient Cause". In adapting a comic to animation, there are several new dimensions of "Material Cause", from animation, to voice acting, to music, to more, each with their own additional "Efficient Causes" (authors, creators) as well as their own "Formal Causes" (animation styles, musical genres).

Differences compound further with film adaptations of television shows, or foreign language dubs of works. In essence, each adaptation, each localization, is a distinct work from the original work. Many critique the writing or storytelling of the comic, but their very framing of the work amidst conversation suggests that their frame of reference for the story is the animated adaptation, or a localization of said adaptation. This results in critiquing the story on grounds other than how it is told. Of course, so too (to a different kind of extent) does doing so when one's frame of reference is an English-language translation of the comic.

This is only one way to split things up, and for my part of it is a work in progress. I didn't include attributes such as "being a commercial product with a demographic", and that's certainly worth being worked in somewhere. A further caveat is that each of these "Causes" might be said to possess their own "Final Cause": the point of comedy is X, the point of drama is Y, the point of animation is Z, etc. There is a lot to explore here.

Any "rules" and "standards" we formulate need be done with at least this much care and sophistication in mind, I think. Storytelling is not a "one size fits all" affair. If my friends opined that my improvised "modern, urban sprawl, hobos" Dungeons & Dragons campaign (featuring, among too much other silly crap to name, an invasion of shit demons, whose weakness was "Peptonium" elemental damage) was "poorly written", I would only agree with them if they weren't also laughing the whole time. But even then I'd question what they thought they were signing up for by letting me have the floor.

---

Wrapping all things back together here...

Toriyama is skilled at subverting expectations. You need to be in order to be funny, and Toriyama is funny. It's possible that people overstate how skilled Toriyama is at this, but that shouldn't be taken as suggesting that he isn't still pretty skilled at it. Adjusing your storytelling standards to the style of story being told. Different stylistic patterns hit different, and require different headspaces, often. Animation hits different than comics. Funny hits different than drama. Funny trying to be drama hits different than either in their pure form.

Looked at without all of this, I can understand why so many take issue with Dragon Ball's writing. It doesn't go how they expect it to. Now, everyone's their own person, with their own thoughts, their own lived experience, and their own values. So if a story development in Dragon Ball went against one person's expectations for one reason, it might go against another person's expectations for another reason. One person may have had their's deliberately subverted by Toriyama. Another person may have had expectations based on a mistaken understanding of its ontology, of its "Causes". Another still may be suffering both. And, of course, it's possible that Toriyama just failed to be funny, or failed to tell an engaging kung fu story, where one expected him to succeed at being funny, or to succeed at telling an engaging kung fu story, by standards informed by someone who knows what to expect form a Fist of the North Star-like made at the Slump factory.

I'm not going to say that most people are assessing Dragon Ball wrong. But whenever I see it compared against something with "better writing", it's never things it very closely resembles, like Dr. Slump, or Fist of the North Star. I mean, like, never. I'll see DB compared to those, but I've never seen someone compare them, and then say "see, this is why DB's writing is shit", or something like that. I'm not opposed to it! But I think if you really want to take DB's writing, and Toriyama, down a peg, then these are what you want to show him failing to measure up to, the boots you want to show him failing to fill. Or maybe I'm not looking hard enough? Who knows.

But, indeed, "subverting expectations" shouldn't be used to "excuse bad writing". If there's some garish blemish on a piece, then don't pretend it's not there. It's part of the piece. Having a human as your "Efficient Cause" means that there will be brush strokes. There will be finger prints.

I'd have liked to touch this post up more, and convert more the of the philosobabble into lay English, but I'm out of time for today. Hope it's readable and comprehensible!

[Cure Dragon 255]

This is quite an AWESOME thread. Very unique too! Good work.

EDIT:OOPS I THOUGHT Zephyr made the opening post. So this thread is a brainfart after all. Oh well. His post is STILL AMAZING.