Is Akira Toriyama more hated than loved? And by whom?

[ekrolo2]

What do you consider melodrama?

Perpetual screaming and crying with just a dash of a hilariously over the top, usually dark, backstory thrown in for good measure. And One Piece is basically littered with it, you've got a better chance of dodging rain in a story then finding a character in One Pice who doesn't scream while crying about his parents being murdered in an alley.

[TheUltimateNinja]

To some extent the History of Trunks special fits this definition as well, especially the dub version.

[ABED]

Mileage varies. I think the outpouring of emotion feels justified in the Trunks TV special. And to tell the truth, I don't mind melodrama. It's a matter of execution. If I did mind it, I couldn't watch teen soaps, and God help me, I do enjoy them.

[ekrolo2]

Of course execution is key, which is why I think the Trunks special succeeds because it executes it well and doesn't have Trunks scream and cry perpetually at every little thing.

It certainly doesn't have anything as eye rolling as the Straw Hat crews broken, disposed ship magically attaining sentience (really!) and carrying them to safety before being burned in a massive pyre where everyone One Pieces the shit out of the whole scene.

[ABED]

It sounds ridiculous when I read that, but I haven't seen it, so I can't speak to its quality.

[Doctor.]

Of course execution is key, which is why I think the Trunks special succeeds because it executes it well and doesn't have Trunks scream and cry perpetually at every little thing.

It certainly doesn't have anything as eye rolling as the Straw Hat crews broken, disposed ship magically attaining sentience (really!) and carrying them to safety before being burned in a massive pyre where everyone One Pieces the shit out of the whole scene.

The fucking worst part is that the fanbase praises that scene like it's the second coming of Christ when it rivals the garbage I've seen in Naruto and Bleach.

[ekrolo2]

Of course execution is key, which is why I think the Trunks special succeeds because it executes it well and doesn't have Trunks scream and cry perpetually at every little thing.

It certainly doesn't have anything as eye rolling as the Straw Hat crews broken, disposed ship magically attaining sentience (really!) and carrying them to safety before being burned in a massive pyre where everyone One Pieces the shit out of the whole scene.

The fucking worst part is that the fanbase praises that scene like it's the second coming of Christ when it rivals the garbage I've seen in Naruto and Bleach.

I'd probably like it and Ace's death better if they actually mattered before dying. There are massive swaths of time where the ship flat out doesn't even appear in any way or contribute besides being their boat. Same thing with Ace, we see him and Luffy hang for a bit, see him lose to Blackbeard and then he drops dead.

[ABED]

The humor of DB plays to Toriyama's strengths and I can see the argument for him not trying to make DB more than what it is, but I do think the times where he tries to go for the heartstrings has worked out well.

[Cipher]

What do you consider melodrama?

Well, technically Dragon Ball is pure melodrama, so I'm being a little unfair here, but "thematically transparent melodramatic dialogue" is a bit of a clunky phrase to keep throwing around. I'm trying to get at the relative self-seriousness of the drama as well.

In this case let's just say I'm drawing a line at shouting simple themes at the reader. I really should be using "thematic transparency" instead, but that doesn't quite get at it, as the simplicity of the themes and the seriousness with which they're offered factors in.

As a hypothetical exercise, though, if Dragon Ball were written similarly to One Piece (or Naruto, or whatever else I'm missing that should probably be listed here), Goku's fight against Vegeta would have not just a single line alluding to hard work overcoming elite talent, but multiple, lengthy back-and-forths on the subject, and Goku would have shouted something about it while firing his climactic Kamehameha.

Dragon Ball's philosophies are consistent enough, and its characters consistent enough, that you can pull thematic readings out of it, but all of it is more subtle, maybe even accidental, and certainly less authorial.

That's the thing about its successor series' writing I find so off-putting, though I'm really not knocking how engaging the simple, transparent themes probably makes them for their intended audiences. As gateway fiction, that can be powerful stuff. If you aren't bothered by it as an older reader, those series can still be perfectly fun.

I just feel like if your favorite work doesn't hold up to some other work you may not enjoy as much, why is that important. It's your favorite work because you enjoy it the most, not because it's intellectually stimulating (well, it can be, but it's not a necessity) or deals with philosophical questions about the nature of consciousness or whatever other crazy, wacky stuff. Quality and entertainment are different concepts and they can and should be seperated. And bringing in outside factors such as the sociocultural context, the author's backstory or the intention of the work will (to a degree) blur the line between those two concepts to the point where criticism becomes too subjective (though, again, I don't consider myself an extreme formalist, so I'm not advocating for the total exclusion of these outside factors in the critical evaluation and comparison of works; I just think their relevance should be minimal). And why else does criticism exist if not to (try to) be objective and neutral?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. I think the first part is implying I'm stepping up to bat for Dragon Ball just because it's a favorite, so I think it needs to be recognized as being critically better than something like One Piece? That seriously isn't my intent. There are works of fiction I think are easily, without question, better, more valuable, and more impactful than Dragon Ball. I just don't feel like calling One Piece a work of superior writing quality does justice either to Dragon Ball, the process of critique, or the idea of standards of good writing. It's less about Dragon Ball's unimpeachability, which I don't think exists, although it's quite good at what it does, and more about that particular assessment feeling off base.

Criticism should be objective and neutral -- and more than anything else, consistent to the critic and fair to the goals of the piece. It's important to have systems for discussing the successes of works of art and identify the elements of craft that resonate with viewers and readers. That doesn't mean I think every "A is objectively better than B" assessment is warranted.

I want to be very clear here that I'm not saying comparisons should never be made. I am only saying I don't think the specific comparison between Dragon Ball and One Piece or One Piece-esque series holds water. I've tried to lay out my specific reservations with that assessment above, but it mostly boils down to the fact that, while something like One Piece reaches further than Dragon Ball in a lot of ways, it also winds up saddling itself with some fantastically clumsy results.

[ekrolo2]

I'd say Toriyama playing things fairly straight helps them out. Goku's single page of crying in triumphant joy when he kills Daimao is a lot more effective that anything the big three have done.

[ABED]

Well, technically Dragon Ball is pure melodrama, so I'm being a little unfair here, but "thematically transparent melodramatic dialogue" is a bit of a clunky phrase to keep throwing around. I'm trying to get at the relative self-seriousness of the drama as well.

Forgive me for not quite understanding your point. What do you mean by thematically transparent melodramatic dialog? Like, do you mean that the dialog is so on the nose that the show still feels the need to explicitly state its themes even if they are abundantly clear? Could you give an example? Will Batman and Robin make it out alive?

[TheUltimateNinja]

I'm starting to get the impression that this discussion has become somewhat pseudointellectual.

[Doctor.]

I am only saying I don't think the specific comparison between Dragon Ball and One Piece or One Piece-esque series holds water.

If you can't make a comparison between two series which, at least superficially, are so similar, then what can you make a comparison with? You don't even need to compare the similarities of the two, you can make a comparison highlighting the differences between them after you get past the surface, which is basically what you've been doing. Saying you shouldn't compare Dragon Ball to One Piece or OP-esque series is ridiculous to me. Saying the comparison holds no water just because the series try to achieve different things seems just like a way to avoid the discussion. Be it because it's too complicated, too annoying or irrelevant, I don't know.

I'm starting to get the impression that this discussion has become somewhat pseudointellectual.

I'm trying to remove the pseudo part from my status, give me a few years.

[Cipher]

If you can't make a comparison between two series which, at least superficially, are so similar, then what can you make a comparison with? You don't even need to compare the similarities of the two, you can make a comparison highlighting the differences between them after you get past the surface, which is basically what you've been doing. Saying you shouldn't compare Dragon Ball to One Piece or OP-esque series is ridiculous to me. Saying the comparison holds no water just because they try to achieve different things seems just like a way to avoid the discussion. Be it because it's too complicated, too annoying or irrelevant, I don't know.

Because I feel One Piece strives for something commendable, particularly for a series with a younger target audience, but it does it in such a clumsy and off-putting way -- more so than it needs to, if I were to critique it within the broad field of children's literature -- that I don't think calling it objectively better than the less pretentious but more haphazardly plotted Dragon Ball is a lock-in at all.

I hesitate to make an objective "better than, worse than" comparison between them, because I'm honestly not sure which way I'd lean, and a lot of my misgivings with One Piece stem from my being outside its target audience. Is it a point for One Piece that it's probably more emotionally engaging for its target audience, or an area to knock it on, because were it to handle the elements it chooses to highlight better, it could maintain broader all-ages appeal? Is it a point for Dragon Ball that I think it's easier to hand someone of any age, or is that just letting it coast on a lack of ambition? Do I judge these on their appeal to my sensibilities as a twenty-six-year-old despite being children's fiction, or do I give a higher mark of quality to the one that best resonates with younger children even if it stalls out harder past a certain age?

I don't know.

[Doctor.]

If you can't make a comparison between two series which, at least superficially, are so similar, then what can you make a comparison with? You don't even need to compare the similarities of the two, you can make a comparison highlighting the differences between them after you get past the surface, which is basically what you've been doing. Saying you shouldn't compare Dragon Ball to One Piece or OP-esque series is ridiculous to me. Saying the comparison holds no water just because they try to achieve different things seems just like a way to avoid the discussion. Be it because it's too complicated, too annoying or irrelevant, I don't know.

Because I feel One Piece strives for something commendable, particularly for a series with a younger target audience, but it does it in such a clumsy and off-putting way -- more so than it needs to, if I were to critique it within the broad field of children's literature -- that I don't think calling it objectively better than the less pretentious but more haphazardly plotted Dragon Ball is a lock-in at all.

And that's fine. I never claimed it's a lock-in, perhaps I should have made it more clear, but I was sure that the prefix "In my opinion" is always implied in my posts regarding these types of subjects. I took issue with you saying the comparison shouldn't be made at all because Dragon Ball is so much more subtle about the execution of its themes and goals; you were basically acting in the same snobbish way you implied the people who claim One Piece/Naruto/whatever are better than Dragon Ball act in.

[Cipher]

And that's fine. I never claimed it's a lock-in, perhaps I should have made it more clear, but I was sure that the prefix "In my opinion" is always implied in my posts regarding these types of subjects. I took issue with you saying the comparison shouldn't be made at all because Dragon Ball is so much more subtle about the execution of its themes and goals; you were basically acting in the same snobbish way you implied the people who claim One Piece/Naruto/whatever are better than Dragon Ball act in.

It was just the "objectively" that got me, as if we had to acknowledge that while anyone can have a favorite between the two, one of these goofy-ass kids' series clearly has better writing than the other.

you were basically acting in the same snobbish way you implied the people who claim One Piece/Naruto/whatever are better than Dragon Ball act in.

That's fair. The prefix "I'm an asshole" should probably always be implied in my posts regardless of subject.

Forgive me for not quite understanding your point. What do you mean by thematically transparent melodramatic dialog? Like, do you mean that the dialog is so on the nose that the show still feels the need to explicitly state its themes even if they are abundantly clear? Could you give an example? Will Batman and Robin make it out alive?

Yes.

It's hard for me to pull an example out of one of the series in question, since I haven't followed them in ages, but if you google "Luffy's speech" or "Naruto's speech," I'm sure you'll find countless examples of the kind of writing that bothers me. I don't even know what speeches they'll be, but I guarantee you'll find something very saccharine explicitly outlining their views on friendship/hard work/etc. to a villain prior to or during a battle.

And my issue is indeed that they're very simplistic things already implied by the story, but which inevitably get given tremendous amounts of page space to be explicitly laid out in dialogue, which is then usually treated as being incredibly profound by other characters in a way that just doesn't jive with what's being said.

[TheUltimateNinja]

I wonder if you can really say that one piece of fiction is objectively better than another, no matter the disparity in quality you personally perceive.

If you were to compare, say, the best works of Shakespeare and the fanfic My Immortal, could you really say that one is objectively superior? In terms of grammar, sure, but that's not what we're talking about.

[Cipher]

If you were to compare, say, the best works of Shakespeare and the fanfic My Immortal, could you really say that one is objectively superior?

Yes, because one successfully communicates the ideas and emotions it seems to want to, and the other is an unintentionally comical trainwreck.

Edit -- I mean, even then I'd hesitate to say "objectively," but no one in a real critical setting would ever use that term in the first place. That's an internet thing.

[TheUltimateNinja]

If you were to compare, say, the best works of Shakespeare and the fanfic My Immortal, could you really say that one is objectively superior?

Yes.

I don't know about that, how so?

[Doctor.]

That's fair. The prefix "I'm an asshole" should probably always be implied in my posts regardless of subject.

Lol, and this is why you're one of my favorite members.

[quote="TheUltimateNinja"[I wonder if you can really say that one piece of fiction is objectively better than another, no matter the disparity in quality you personally perceive.

If you were to compare, say, the best works of Shakespeare and the fanfic My Immortal, could you really say that one is objectively superior? In terms of grammar, sure, but that's not what we're talking about.[/quote]

Short answer is no, because it's not a science nor will it ever be. Like philosophy, what's perceived as the winning viewpoint comes down to who has the better arguments. Even if you get 99.9% of people to believe that x is better than y, someone can come along and claim otherwise and convince everyone of his viewpoint with the right arguments, just as you can convince someone if, say, there's free will or not. You will never be able to convince a normal, rational human being that the sky, as our eyes perceive it, is not blue.