— — — —— — —
×
— —— —
— — — —— — —
×
— —— —
— — — —— — —
×
— —— —
← darkroom
Metaphorical vs Literal
I've noticed a clear distinction between people who prefer literal works or metaphorical ones and am curious how many people fall where, myself being firmly in the metaphorical camp (see what I did there).
An example of what I mean by "metaphorical show" is Utena, where none of it is meant to be taken literally.
An example of a "literal show" would be Death Note, where you can take what you see as is.
(To clarify: when I say "metaphorical" I specifically am referring too how a show is visually or narratively told. While symbolism and metaphorical dialog play a part, a show can use both those elements and still be largely literal.)
(Through conversation in this thread I've found Metaphorical isn't really the right term. Abstract and/or experimental are closer.)
This divide seems to occur in a close friend group of mine. I see myself preferring the metaphorical shows as well, and the group is split about evenly between the two. We've all come together on enjoying some shows/movies though.
I've found it easier to differentiate between the camps by looking at A. What shows/movies/books they recommend, and B. What specific parts they enjoy within media I recommend.
In my opinion, while I do like both literal and abstract/metaphorical use of storytelling through visuals or sounds, it all comes down to a matter of how it is used and when it's used, or better said, context.
For example, SHAFT utilizes psychedelic, eclectic visuals as an effective tool to convey more creative storytelling and represent tonal shifts, internal dialogue and mood of a character or particular scene. KyoAni, in the other hand, it's very straightforward because more of their shows tend to be narratively straightforward, and the characters personalities tend to convey how they are, interact and act with other characters or themselves.
So, in my honest opinion, it all comes down to a matter of context and if it's well done and the execution enhance the narrative, plot, character development or any other aspect of the show, without distracting the viewer and being consequential within the context of it, I take both, although I slightly prefer more metaphorical, visual-driven storytelling because it tends to be more freewheeling and creative IMHO.
I tend to like literal shows better, as sometimes more abstract works walk the line between actually being thought provoking and just being a jumbled mess that's using the "Deep and phylosophical" tag to hide the fact that is a jumbled mess, though there are some pretty good metaphorical shows that I've enjoyed
Tbh, nowadays, when an anime is giving a literal message, I tend to overthink it and find some hidden meaning behind it. I guess I love to think during a show(besides mysteries). That's why I loved shows like Monogatari Series, and Tatami Galaxy. At times, Mononoke was confusing but that made me love it even more. Its boring just watching a show recycle same old cliches.
I also like how many anime openings play around with metaphors too. Like Rakugo 2nd opening. I also like heavy symbolism too(is it the same as metaphors? I can't tell.) Especially Devilman Crybaby op. The show and its op were pretty symbolic. Though downside was it was easy to tell what they were symbolizing.
A good mix of both, leaning towards metaphorical. Extremes tend to piss me off.
And Utena is actually one of those that I criticized for relying too heavily on metaphorical to actually be entertaining and not boring to sit through. The movie is one of my favorites though, it's slightly more literal and actually entertaining to sit through because of it.
100% literal shows, like Fairy Tail (scrapping the very bottom, sorry lmao) have zero depth and instead have "FRIENDS UNTIL THE END" and epic fight scenes or whatever, which doesn't really get me invested in anything, plot or character-wise.
Death Note is not a very good example IMO. It's actually a mix of both (leaning literal of course), while you can enjoy it literally there is much to be derived from it metaphorically. Allusions to old literature and Jesus Christ are some surface-level stuff, putting aside other factors that can be analyzed like the directing and such.
If you want something to debate about this more, FLCL is perfect. When you take it literally, you get metaphorical results. Taking it metaphorically doesn't really work. I can't explain this unless I give spoilers, so
For example, when Eri jumps over the hurdle, she literally completes an arc, signifying her "completing an arc" with her parents which happened off-screen. Just one of the many examples where taking things in a literal sense gives you a metaphorical answer
I don't personally consider metaphorical vs. literal to be a clear or important distinction in media. Metaphorical stories are so rare, it seems like a strange distinction to draw. Rather, I see the biggest differences between my taste and the tastes of other anime fans in regards to our tolerance for certain things in stories.
The "average" watcher has a high tolerance for generic, thematically weak stories, poor story-telling, and dues ex machina endings so long as they have "good fight scenes" and present a (supposedly) high-stakes narrative. The average watcher is also more focused on characters than they are on world-building.
etc.
I'd say metaphorical shows happen often enough for the distinction to be made, and that maybe my using Utena as the example was a bit misleading. Utena is very much the extreme, perhaps something like Kill la Kill or the Monogatari series would work better. Though the line between metaphorical and literal is very fittingly abstract and different people would draw the line at different places.
I'm very intrigued by you stating the average viewer is more focused on characters than world building. Mainly in why you compare the two in the first place.
Well it's like, I look at my anime list and identify the "metaphorical" shows/movies on it and see a tiny subset of the total list:
- One-Punch Man (except it's low-key and the average user doesn't notice or care)
- Re:Creators
- Fate
- Bungou Stray Dogs
- Perfect Blue
- Paprika
It's like, there are a few very specific directors (Satoshi Kon, Kunihiko Ikuhara) which like to create the work which is "metaphorical" to the degree you're referencing in your OP. Then there are anime which feature metaphors but don't generally require the viewer to recognize or understand said metaphors to enjoy the work, which is different from what you're talking about.
There certainly are anime which have intellectual themes or make use of disjointed storytelling, parody, or other "more advanced" literary concepts, but it's inaccurate to group those all under "metaphor" as that's not what they are. If anything you might call them "geared towards intellectual viewers through the use of story-telling devices that the average viewer may not recognize or appreciate".
I suppose what I'm getting at is the representative quantity of anime which use metaphor as a central story-telling element is relatively small (~1% maybe?), so it seems odd to have two categories "metaphorical and literal". The greater majority of anime is not highly metaphorical, so the categories are kind of lopsided. You can be someone who generally likes metaphorical story-telling, but I wouldn't think it would be the key defining attribute of your taste, just as generally not liking metaphorical story-telling wouldn't be a key attribute of someone else's taste. There's a lot more going on in stories than just metaphor, so there's probably a broader way to describe what you're interested in relative to what other people are interested in. ;)
I'm very intrigued by you stating the average viewer is more focused on characters than world building. Mainly in why you compare the two in the first place.
Oftentimes I see situations where there are people who like an anime for its worldbuilding, and there are other people don't like it because they don't feel immersed in the characters. Essentially, I don't really mind weak characters if the world-building is solid, where other viewers don't mind weak world-building if the characters and their place in the story is solid.
Yeah I am using metaphor a little loose aren't I? This thread was mainly inspired by the conversation surrounding Utena and why it's beloved or hated, hence the use of metaphor. Abstract or experimental would likely of worked better
Yes, abstract and experimental seems like a more accurate description of the anime you're referencing.
Coming back to the OP, I think that most viewers don't care for trying to figure out an abstract or deeply complex story. They may experience the story as being haughty/too intellectual and don't want to or care to try to understand it. Different people experience stories differently. Where one person might see an abstract story and become deeply focused on trying to understand what it's trying to say, another person may simply be annoyed with the lack straightforwardness and lose interest.
I think a valuable concept to consider in this discussion is show, don't tell. It's a key component of most critically acclaimed media. It gives the media depth, and allows it to tackle complex or abstract themes. I think an important distinction exists between media which "tells" the user about its themes through dialogue or narration, and media which "shows" the user its themes through visual storytelling. It's not the same as the distinction you're drawing between abstract and literal works, but it's very similar.
There is of course a range in all this. On one end of the range you have media like Revolutionary Girl Utena and Sarazanmai, and on the other end you have media like One Piece and Fairy Tale. Interspersed in that range is everything else. I personally generally enjoy media which exists in the middle of this range, leaning a bit towards the abstract. The "hyper-abstract" / "experimental" stuff just doesn't get my goat, because I can't tell if it actually has meaning or is just a bunch of semi-coherent imagery slapped into a structure vaguely resembling a story.
- continue this thread →
I find the "show don't tell" mantra a bit reductive. While I mostly agree with it, it neglects when narration or exposition are genuinely well done.
Take the Monogatari series: Largely expositional, but the exposition speaks in a indirect way, leaving interpretation and deeper thought there.
Or something like the narrator in HxH's chimera ant arc Where he's used give needed information that'd be too cheesy for characters to think to them self. Or when it'd be out of character for them to think, namely in Gon's deteriorating mental state.
This whole topic deserves its own thread if it doesn't already have one.
(I couldn't find a thread for it so I'll make one)
Literal is the word we use when we mean exactly what we say, and metaphorical or figurative is what we say when we're playing around. When we're being figurative, we say “it was a million miles away”, meaning “I walked for hours.” When we're being literal, a million miles away is somewhere between the moon and Mars My Lowe's Life.
