Cute High Earth Defense Club LOVE!

earthdfe
I’m glad this exists, but not sure how I feel about it besides that.

We need an anime like this. Everyone talks about how the male point of view is dominant in media. Earth Defense Club provides plenty of fanservice for females. It’s a gloriously feminine anime, all hearts and hot boys. It also has a wink-wink satirical element, which often goes against it.

The attempt at being gloriously feminine is fantastic. It’s not even moe. The character design is useful to note the difference between male power fantasies, and females’ fantasies about guys. Ultra-mascular guys aren’t fanservice for females, but for males. The strength and endurance they show isn’t automatically sexually attractive, but something males wish for themselves.

The design of the guys here isn’t macho. It’s pretty in a distinct females’-fantasy way. There is elegance and softness to their looks. It is not genderbending. The looks simply have sex appeal and confidence to them, but also a naturalness. A developed body like in JoJo clearly shows the person worked on it. An effortless body like of these characters points to superior genes. These looks are also friendly, which is necessary for sex appeal. For a change, the male design is meant to appeal to females.

vlcsnap-2016-08-13-14h26m55s249

It’s also good when you don’t consider this factor. The purpose of character design is to express the characters’ traits, and they’re all designed according to their personality. Yumoto’s carelessness and love for cuteness is in his wide-eyes and childish hair. Yufuin has the indifferent eyes of a lazy person. Since everyone is meant to be sexually attractive, there’s no variety in body structure. However, even a small difference in the eyes – order-obsessed Kin’s narrow ones, beauty lover Akoya’s feminine ones – tell us enough.

Once you go past the visuals, it becomes unstable. Is it a satire of magical girl? Or does it take the female catering of the genre to its extreme? It cannot decide between the two. It cannot decide whether it wants to reveal the absurdities, or have fun with the cliches.

Both elements fight, and often negate each other. The enemies are too silly to take seriously, but they’re never wild enough. They’re wild enough to be considered ‘satirical’, but it’s mostly tokenism. The transformation scenes are fantastic and well-done. After they end the characters have to get self-aware about their customes.

vlcsnap-2016-08-13-14h27m27s61

It’s confusing. Am I supposed to enjoy the hot-boy-and-love world, or to mock it? This balance between satire and tribute is nearly impossible. There is a way to accomplish it, but that means not being satirical. You take the genre’s cliches and push them to the limit in order to see how much Coolness Factor you can gain. This approach must never become self-aware. The appeal of it is that the creators don’t care about how ridiculous they get.

Earth Defense Club cares too much about how cool it is. Its detachment also harms the character development. At their core, they’re great. After a few episodes, you notice that half of them don’t offer much beyond their hobbies. Some are well-written, with interests that match their personality. Yumoto, Yufuin and Ryuu don’t just name-drop their obsession. They have their own unique reactions to every situation (Yufuin’s indifference, Ryuu’s aggression). Naruko, for the most part, doesn’t do anything but reminds the viewers he’s into money.

vlcsnap-2016-08-13-14h28m00s193

The enemies often have an inner conflict, a motivation that makes them evil. This is the basic and brilliant approach to creating antagonists. The show never builds on it though. Besides ranting for a while, they don’t do much. Their monologues aren’t funny or have any insight into why they became monsters. At first, it’s exciting how every villain of the week has clear motivations. It doesn’t manner when they end up functioning in the same manner – rant for a while and then get Love Attacked.

The last episode contains a cool twists. The creators use it like a person who just won a million dollars buying 1000 bottls of craft beers. Craft beers are awesome, but if you won a million dollars there are better ways to spend it. The twist is cool, and made the wink-wink satire makes sense. However, they literally do nothing with it. It’s revealed there was something bigger than conquering the earth, power up and defeat the big bad.

The mere existence of the show is enough to make it worthwhile. Not everyday you see an anime about hot magical boys. It had a chance to do something new, to show a gloriously feminine show and be as fun as JoJo. Sadly, in the end it’s still insecure about hearts and pink and love and hot boys. The novelty value is enough to carry it for 12 episodes but I can’t imagine this working as a second season.

2.5 hot boys out of 5

Advertisements

Cassandra Clare – City of Bones

cityofbones
Other reviewers listed the stories that this novel borrows from. Characters are, apparently, plucked from someone else’s movie or book, given a different name and a slightly different attire. I’m not familiar with the Big Things of teen fiction. I’ve never watched Buffy and never immersed myself in Harry Potter. This still felt so derivative.

This is another book that came out of fan fiction. You’d expect it to have more verve, more energy. Copy your favorite story, but at least show the passion you have for it. If the novel had the rabid energy fans express over Harry Potter or Star Wars then the unoriginal story wouldn’t matter so much. It’d at least have excitement.

City of Bones feels tired all the way. It’s written by an amateur author who has little experience with what stories can be. It never imagines stories can do other thing than just become more convoluted. We all had this phase when we thought that plot twists was proof the writer was clever, but I thought we’d outgrown it. Surely, even the overrated Nolan proved thrillers have more than just “Surprise!”.

Clary does nothing. Calling her a ‘weak female protagonist’ would at least means she has some sort of role. A female whose role is only to help the main male character at least does something, active in some way. Clary is an observer. She stands around and things happen.

It’s amazing how many events rain down the characters and how little of them are instigated by them. It’s not the examination of “life is out of control” idea. The events have nothing to do with the characters and Clare doesn’t examine their reactions. She introduces a conflict, the characters solve it because of brute force and then they wait until something else happens.

If Clary helped solving the cases, it’d add some intensity. She tends to sit back and look at everyone do their thing, Shadowhunters shadowhuntin’.

There’s something tempting about such protagonists. They’re easy to write and they give the reader (or more important, the author) a hole to insert themselves in. This way, you can watch the story happen through someone’s eyes.

This character is never actually a part of the story though. The camera is never a part of the film’s plot. Some stories deliberately create such characters, but this ‘observer’ nature is addressed in the story and a part of the personality. Clary’s personality is never meant to be a shy observer.

Perhaps she’s meant to be some sort of sassy heroine. She sometimes slap people or gets mad at them, but that’s not enough for a character. A character’s personality is established by multiple incidents that can be connected. More importantly, how the character reacts needs to be connected to the personality. Even if all your characters are cruel, they each need to do it in their own way (something Future Diary does well, for example). Clary just gets angry.

The other characters don’t have much going for them. The other female is supposed to be much prettier (although Clary gets the red head), there’s a gay dude who could have been interesting and the Nice Guy/Brooding Assole dualism. Is daddy issues a new thing in this type of fiction?

You know these characters are different because the characters themselves say it. Somehow, they see things that Clare didn’t write or left off. Everyone talks in the same way. Everyone makes the same sarcastic jokes. I know sarcasm seemed like the newest thing when you’re at your teens but isn’t it a little old? So the books are set at a time when sarcasm is still new. There’s no way everyone is witty.

Her world borrows every fantasy staple. She adds nothing we haven’t seen before and none of the staples she uses are interesting. Vampires still suck blood and have pale skin. Werewolves learn to control their shape-shifting, mostly because one of the good characters is a werewolf and that would be inconvenient. Warlocks are more interesting. They’re hedonistic party animals who dress like they’re in a rave. Here’s a way to modernize a fantasy staple. Too bad that the warlock only appears for one scene and his role is (like everyone else’s) to give us more exposition.

It always happens with such books. The side-characters end up being more interesting because they’re more conflicting. Even Alec, who gets little page-time is a more interesting idea. He’s a gay who’s into a straight dude. That’s a worthwhile situation to write about, but that would require focusing on psychology and character interaction. Such a story couldn’t rely on events just happening.

Using Biblical names and fantasy staples doesn’t make your fiction fantastical. The world here is so familiar, so ordinary and I’m not even well-versed in fantasy. I also watched High School DXD while reading this and the whole devils ‘n’ angels things kept getting mixed up. The difference between the two is that Clare has no purpose for what she does. DXD knows it’s just an overblown ecchi show.

We also get an evil character who wants to purify the world and kills what he considers bad. As Fallout 3 displayed, this idea is still worthwhile. It can be used to explore racism and bigotry by giving the bigot some reasonable basis for his beliefs. Clare had a potential here because the creatures the bad guy wants to kill are a bit in the morally grey area.

Instead of showing the issue from different perspectives, we just have the bad guy laugh maniacally and dream of strength. Then again, halfway through the book or so it’s revealed the series is named after a series of plot coupons.

Clare’s writing isn’t too dense, but it’s also not smooth enough. There are a lot of similes, many of which are pointless. Clare doesn’t overdo descriptions. She lingers on the odd details, the type that stick out to the eye. Her description of a party room is great, pointing out all the colors and odd shapes.

Her way of writing is devoid of personality. The smilies are random, exists mainly because Clare can’t think of describing something without a simile. At first, the huge variety of them is fun. After about fifty of them it gets tiring. It’s a sign Clare has no interesting way of looking at things or of writing about them.

The novel relies mainly on things happening. Werewolves arrive, parties are getting rocked, someone turns into a rat, swords clash and blood pours. This can be exciting even if your characters have no reason to exist but enact these events. Clare’s writing isn’t exciting. It doesn’t drag the scenes down but doesn’t add energy to them because she has no interesting phrases. The event themselves can’t stand on their own. It’s mostly blood pouring and swords clashing.

There’s some fun to be had in this novel, but I expected more. Even as just a Young Adult adventure about hot brooding guys, paranormal beings and saving the world this could’ve been more fun. Clare writes like she’s just trying to please herself. I hope she’s passionate about generic werewolves and passive heroines because it sucks to write about things that bore you. Still, if only a little passion leaked to the page it’d elevate the story. The only remarkable thing about this is the controversy surrounding it.

2 cities out of 5 bones

Taylor Swift – 1989

1989

How brilliant is “Blank Space”?

When I was with my girlfriend, I couldn’t listen to it. It was a laughing warning sign, taunting me that all this happiness is bound to end. When she dumped me, I still couldn’t listen to it. It laughed harder and bragged how it told me so. It’s more than a take on Taylor’s ‘serial dating’. It’s a song that acknowledge the futility of the Pursuit of Love.

We all know that most relationships won’t last. Marriage is just a fancy ceremony. Yet we keep going, still trying to find that person. Taylor takes a look from above and laughs how repetitive it all is. There’s hope that it might be worth all the work (“You can tell me when it’s over/if the high was worth the pain”) but that’s it. Taylor doesn’t even consider the possibility that this time it might work.

You’d think that in the age when science and atheism are popular, people would be more cynical. I’m surrounded by people who have a strong faith in love and that we will all find The One. “Blank Space” is a rarity in a world whose view of romance is almost cult-ish.

That song is a towering achievement in an album where nothing tries to match it.

Taylor made a career out of singing about heartbreak. That’s not unique, but to her credit she always had some insight to add to that never-ending subject. On 1989, it sounds like the subject is no longer important to her.

There are a lot of songs about relationships that failed, but there is no sorrow here. The reason we sing about heartbreak and listen to those songs is because we can’t just get over it. Someone in the world has it worse, but heartbreak is a painful experience even when it’s boring. We’re afraid of taking chances because every hurt makes it worse.

Taylor sounds like she can afford to get hurt. It fell apart on about 5 songs here, but Swift just shrugs it off. These are not anthems of resilience. These are songs about heartbreak where the singer moves on after a week. It’s like Ed Sheeran, only less creepy.

Maybe this is how reality works now. I know 3 girls who exited relationships and immidiately found new suitors. Taylor is a beautiful and successful singer, so I’m sure she has plenty of hot guys at the door. When you can get so many hot and famous guys, does it really matter when it falls apart? A replacement is on the way. It’s better than Ed Sheerans’ attempt at having one night stands with girls dying for romance, but it still misses the point.

The hotness of the guys is important. Taylor discovers sexuality on 1989. When young Pop stars discover sexuality. it’s scary. Many try to use sex as a form of rebellion. They dress half-naked in the music videos and we’re supposed to think they’re unique for having sex (like everyone else does?).

Taylor’s sexuality is different. She’s closer to Tove Lo than Nicki Minaj. She doesn’t brag about how many guys stare at her ass. She’s simply enjoying being found attractive by attractive guys, and being attracted to them. There are no explicit songs about sex, but the delivary is very sensual. “Style” sounds like Kylie Minogue, only more tame. “Wildest Dreams” is all about sex. She doesn’t throw herself at the subject like Tove Lo or Minogue, but it’s her first steps towards it and they’re great. If Taylor made an album that’s all about sex, it will turn out great. The way she sings ‘a tight little skirt’ is sexier than anything Minaj or Lady Gaga will ever do.

Speaking of “Wildest Dreams”, it’s the song that symbolizes the main problem. Everyone said it sounds like Lana Del Rey. Why it’s not as good as Lana is what’s interesting. Lana Del Rey made songs about being attracted to Hot Bad Guys and about all the fun and tragedy it involved. She put the excitement right next to the fall and asked us if it was worth it.

There is danger in “Off to the Races”. There is tragedy in “Born to Die”. There’s nothing like that in Taylor’s song. The guy she’s into is tall, handsome and is good at being bad. She doesn’t address how it affects her. The relationship doesn’t last, obviously, but where’s the heartbreak and the pain? Where is the grieving? Taylor sounds invincible. She wishes that the guy would remember her and that’s it. That’s not the brave-face act that made Smiths’ “I Know It’s Over” so good. That one had cracks in the surface.

Taylor was never an outsider. She tried to paint herself as such in songs like “You Belong to Me”, but it’s hard to be a beautiful outcast in a society where female beauty is worshipped. 1989 is a step in admitting that she’s one of the Beautiful People. That’s why “Style” sounds so honest. That’s why on “Shake It Off” she doesn’t diss her haters or prove to us she’s strong but celebrates herself. Both of these are a lot of fun.

The rest of the songs sound like weird celebrations of being attracted to Hot Bad Guys who know how to get the girl. I’m happy for Taylor she can now afford to jump from relationship to relationship without suffering heartbreak, but it’s not good material for heartbreak music. At worst, she sounds smug and unpleasant, disconnected from How People Feel. El-P’s frustration over “Welcome to New York” makes sense. New York must seem great when you’re a beautiful successful singer, but all these underground rappers have a different perspective. Hot Bad Guys aren’t a problem when you’re attractive, but when suitors are less common then every one matters and every one hurts.

There are few songs that sound like leftover from a different era. “Out of the Woods” is Midwest Emo lyrics in a Pop song. It uses imagery over spelling out how the narrator feels, and Taylor sounds vulnerable and unsure in the chorus. Although she abandoned country completely, the narration of the song makes you wonder whether there’s a Bluegrass demo of it. “Clean” also helps conclude the album with the realization that Taylor is strong, she left the heartbreaks behind and she can move on. Does that mean we get her sex album now?

At least Taylor’s talent for hooks isn’t gone. 1989 doesn’t fail like most Pop albums do. There are no shortage of good hooks here. Despite Taylor’s detatchment, “I Wish You Would”, “Wildest Dreams” and “Bad Blood” all have poppin’ melodies. She also saved the melodies for the best lyrics, so the result is overall a pleasant, but disappointing album. At least Taylor doesn’t sound out of steam. She’s probably just not out of the woods yet.

3 blank spaces out of 5

Ian McEwan – Atonement

Atonement_(novel)

There are two competing novels here. One is driven by a character’s flaw and how it brought her to do a terrible thing. The other is a manipulative, Shawsank Redemption-like tale where the author takes a character who has it made and puts a lot of external troubles on it in order to make us sympathize. Surrounding these novels is some great writing that made you understand why so few authors try minimalism.

There’s no reason to sympethize with Robbie. He has no character. He has no flaw to struggle against. The trouble he faces is all external, and it doesn’t take any effort to just pile terrible events on the character. It’s especially easy to pile on these events, and leave the character almost unscarred to show us how strong and capable he is.

Maybe McEwan wants to inspire me to be good with Robbie’s character, but Robbie needs to have a character first. After being sent to the frontlines because of nothing, Robbie remains humanitarian and nice to everyone. He tries to save a woman and a child, and even a pencil pusher that’s almost being lynched.

Why should he want to save him, though? Robbie ate shit all the way. His only companions aren’t very pleasant. Why shouldn’t anger take the best of him? Soldiers are often angry at ‘pencil pushers’ and office workers. These people make a lot of decisions from behind their desks without seeing the bombings and the fighting. There’s no reason for Robbie to try to save anyone, let alone what soldiers especially despise. There is no depth to this ‘goodness’. It’s a hook to try to make us like Robbie, but that’s exactly what makes him so boring and unappealing.

Only at the end Robbie does something less than admirable, but McEwan doesn’t let all his events reach their logical conclusion. Robbie is barely scarred. All that needs to prevent him from hitting the bottom is some cliched crap about the power of love. Does McEwan thinks that after all Robbie went through, a women’s love is enough? That’s a recipe for cheap escapism.

By never letting Robbie succumb to the logical conclusion of going through hell, he paints a world of black and white. He doesn’t want to. He tries really hard to get to the emotional core of the characters. It’s espceially evident in the small characters and Briony, but all of them deserved so much more than being on a novel where Robbie stars.

Briony is, if not exactly complex, a real character. The deed she tries to atone for comes out of her personality. She does it not just to make the plot move because it’s the reasonable thing to do for a character who lives more inside her head than in the world. Everything else about her stems from this. All her other decisions and actions comes from her character. The end of her story is also consistent with her themes.

It’s almost misandrist how McEwan gives zero depth to the male character while writing Briony so real.

The post-modern Gotcha! at the end doesn’t really redeem this flaw. If anything, it just makes Briony far deeper and Robbie shallower. It’s a twist that serves the story, but it doesn’t excuse spending so many pages with someone with less character than a shovel. It doesn’t excuse the complete lack of even hinting at Robbie is not a saint. I recall how Atwood failed back in The Blind Assassin. Being sexually attractive is not enough to make a man a saint.

Between these two stories there is a lot of writing. It’s mostly descriptions, but if everyone described like McEwan then it’d make reading so much easier.

McEwan’s greatest prose is found in the middle, writing about the war effort. His attention to small details and every person who passes by is not because it makes it ‘more real’, or to pad the book in attempts to impress. He writes every passer-by like he’s the star of his own novel. Every one of them has his own little short story. They’re so good that you tend to forget Robbie is even there.

It’s so good that the bluntness can be forgiven. McEwan writes like a sledgehammer. He describes everything, and then writes a literary critique of it. This makes Atonement a funny novel. It’s both long and very easy to read. I’d normally attack an author for being that blunt, but it’s deceptive. The emotional insight he shows with the soldiers, both on the frontlines and the hospital contains much more than what he writes.

How an author can fail on what his story focuses and writes beautifully the sidelines is beyond me. Atonement is written by an author of great talent. There’s enough her to enjoy – Briony’s character, the various digressions and descriptions – that it’s easy to forget where McEwan fails. I’m really tired about reading about sexually attractive, righteous and perfect guys whose only troubles are external. It’s not a brilliant novel, but it has plenty of hints of brilliance.

3 nurses out of 5