The near-lack of cyncism

It’s not that Christians are entirely lacking in cynicism but that when you neglect intellectualism (or at least intellectual curiosity) for adolescent ego-satiation (though that may not always be a bad thing) that it makes it harder for Christians to be aware of the topics the Bible may’ve been talking about. At other times, I actually think it’s Christians who should care more about dog predation if because they know the Bible seemingly doesn’t have that high of an opinion on dogs (though at other times, it may often be ambivalent).

Most secular people don’t know any better but when secular people end up doing the heavy-lifting, though it could be viewed as validation it’s also sometimes a failure to have any real curiosity into the possibilities others don’t consider much. Besides dog predation was already recorded as early as the 20th century and possibly even earlier. But it seems to be ignored. As is the lack of awareness of prostitution even though one Dutch Christian group’s aware of it.

But it seems the lack of awareness of seemingly secular topics makes me think Christians have abandoned age-old cynicism for never-ending ecstasy even if that provides insight into vice and the like.

Juvenilisation and the lack of reverence

It’s not that Christians have stopped being cynical (or compassionate for another matter) but rather the need for self-fulfillment has replaced the need for self-restraint and self-awareness. It’s actually an on-going juvenilisation even when secular culture becomes increasingly sensitive to ageism (which makes sense as more and more people live longer, they also get to retain their jobs more even if that may’ve been the case before especially in hunter-gatherer and ancient societies where they’re beloved for their wisdom).

The lack of reverence or at least awareness for the past has made it harder for Christians to stop having a self-centred faith. In the sense that rather than being taught to study about Christian history more extensively (which includes the Catholic parts), there’s a stronger sense of wanting their needs and wants fulfilled. That too isn’t a bad thing but this has to be tempered by a stronger awareness of not only social vices but also history as to give insight. Not to mention there’s also a tendency to expect God to do a lot of emotional labour.

But when he does get tired, it seems Christians fail to realise that he can get angry or stressed out. There’s again a lack of regard for the past that makes for a rather abysmal present and future. It seems wisdom and reverence for tradition gets replaced by immature narcissism and why this is a problem.

Heroic Nudity or Not

This is debatable whether if men are objectified in art or not, though this is something I’m sometimes guilty of (or close to it) sometimes. But I think in the context of how nuanced objectification is beyond simply wearing skimpy outfits (in some cases like certain sports, this may even be justified).

It’s also got to do with the posing as well as the focus on certain body parts (I sometimes have a feeling that certain characters could get away with certain things if/when they’re depicted as having very uncanny valley anatomy to lessen the objectification at least in some cases).

I think the difference, though sometimes grey, is clear between Boris Vallejo’s artwork and those of David Gregham, Aleksander Vishnakov and Tony Butcher. Though not always the case, I get the impression of nude men in Vallejo’s artwork as being involved in actual physical activity or at least having body language that goes beyond passive sex object.

The latter three sometimes have very passively posed men. Vallejo may sexualise his men but not to the same extent the latter three do, especially as they either make the men be as passively and seductively posed as female characters do (Vallejo’s men are often almost always engaged in physical activity).

Gregham and Butcher all seem like watered down versions of Robert Mapplethorpe (if you know what I mean even though Dianora Niccolini’s not any better either) whilst Vishnakov shares Mapplethorpe’s BDSM fascination. Vallejo, by contrast, is actually closer to the artists who do heroic nudity a lot. I mean his male characters are often warriors.

Or at least involved in physical activity (though it can be argued that he’s not any better however by depicting them as macho seducers of women sometimes so). This may not always be the case but I still get the impression of Vallejo, whenever he does feature men at all, even when they’re naked they’re almost always supposed to be heroic or warlike.

(Or at the very least engaged in physical activity, much like his late rival Frank Frazetta.) The men in the latter three’s works are (much) likelier to be passively and seductively posed characters.

The start of animegate

I actually think the real start of animegate is when another anime professional not only tears down the anime industry but also criticises a lot of its vices (some of it are near and dear to anime fans). That and other countries, including African ones, possibly surpassing and overshadowing Japan. Hayao Miyazaki, Yoshiyuki Tomino and Hideaki Anno were already sounding the alarm. So did Kemono Friends’s producer.

Not to mention that the odd fact that American animation’s already quickly catching up on the things anime covered. I mean in due time, American animation might become one of the major adult animation hubs. When I mean by that, it’s not just stuff like Castlevania and Primal as well as arguably The Killing Joke and The Zone doing whatever anime studios did before (you know sex and ultra-violence).

But also that anime might not be around forever, let alone in its current form to the point where should another anime professional say anime might already be dying (and they’re not who you expected), I half expect anime fans to be upset by this. Never mind Miyazaki and Anno were already sounding the alarms before. Not to mention, I even expect prose fiction to be the new anime whether if anime fans like it or not.

Animegate?

I think should animegate happen, it would take many more anime professionals to say something wrong about the anime industry right down to tearing down certain beloved historical icons. No seriously, that’s really going to happen. Not to mention, Hideaki Anno even implied that other countries’ animation industries aren’t just improving but also likely to overshadow Japan in time.

I even think Africa’s already going to get better at animation. There’s Aya of Yopougon, Supa Strikas, Super K and Bino and Fino. The next Naruto might be Ghanaian and by then, anime proper’s a musuem piece. Not that Japan won’t stop producing anime but that the main hubs for Asian animation are going to be in China and India. (Potential super powers even and that’s saying.)

By the time another anime professional tears down Osamu Tezuka since Hayao Miyazaki, Animegate would already happened but by then it’s too late to revive Japanese anime en masse. Almost to the point where it’s practically something only old people remember. It’s like why most youngsters today don’t obsess over Lensman and Poul Anderson.

They already had their time in the sun. So will Naruto.

Writing from life

A radical new suggestion but I suspect writers really need to write not only from life but also from nonfiction. Maybe that’s my personal bias but something needed as to lessen the usage of stereotypes and cliches. I mean it does suck that characters would sometimes act in a repetitive way almost to the point where there’s no doubt in subverting said cliche when all that’s needed’s to get new life experiences and interests.

Simple on paper, hard in practise. But it does seem really odd why not too many schools recommened that one has to write from life never mind that most writers don’t really start out having a writing career, let alone in fiction where somebody might have to do other things first. I suspect writing from life doesn’t sound attractive even if writers inevitably do it anyways. As is gaining new interests and experiences over time.

The Ultraviolent Spectrum and Perils

It’s not necessarily wrong to include violence and the like but there are other times one has to draw a line. It’s not necessarily wrong to discuss about why animal cruelty’s bad, at other times it’s best left to nonfiction (news reports, scientific studies and anecdotes) to do the work. Even a comics writer would realise it in the future.

Violence, like sex, aren’t inherently bad. The real issues are that one has to draw a line and sometimes certain things do have a time and place. You’d be better off understanding animal cruelty through nonfiction reports and studies. It’s not wrong to be curious about those things, it’s just that you have to learn to comparmentalise.

But that’s realising there’s a time and place for those.