I'm Back (but not really)

Day 2,667, 20:23 • Published in USA USA • by Dio Soryu

I have been struggling for some time with a question and, it seems, I'm not the only one. Or, perhaps I am, since I seem to be the only person struggling with it. Everyone seems to have decided upon their answer, already but I've not found their arguments particularly convincing.

I find this troubling, because the gut-level dismissal of the question prevents people from examining the larger scope and context the question is asked in.

Is RWBY Anime?

In terms of strict definition, it is not. Anime is the Japanese word for 'Animation' and, at least here in the West, that term is specific to animation originating in Japan. However, proponents of this argument might be surprised to learn that, if you live in Japan, RWBY is indeed 'Anime'; as is The Simpsons, The Flintstones and Family Guy. That's just their word for it.

Still, that definition isn't satisfying to me and nor will it be satisfying to most of my fellow fans of Anime. When I think of 'Anime', I have a particular style of art and set of tropes in my mind, yet I cannot say I find the Western definition satisfying either and for very much the same reason.

If, in hypothetical example, an episode of the Simpsons happened to be outsourced to a Japanese studio, does it then become 'Anime'?

Another argument I have heard frequently voiced is that it is not Anime because the artistic style is somewhat different and/or because of the use of CGI. These are both very provably flawed arguments, however. Most Anime is CGI heavy and very little is actually drawn by hand, anymore, which is a very good thing as it's meant an explosion of new Anime being produced because it's become much less labor intensive. As for artistic style, I'm not sure one can truly make that argument. I would certainly say that RWBY looks a lot more 'like anime' than, for example, Panty and Stocking.

I believe the problem we have reached, here, is that the definition of the word is wrong or, more precisely, it is no longer meaningful or useful and, when we take a look at the development of the industry, the becomes more and more apparent. A lot of what we call 'Anime' is not actually made in Japan, anymore, as much of it has been outsourced to Korea and China.

Complicating this further, a vast number of our own Western-style cartoons have also been outsourced to Korea. The Korean studio AKOM, for example, is responsible for episodes or entire seasons of Animaniacs, Earthworm Jim, My Little Pony (the original), Tiny Toons and a great number of others. Are we then to correctly refer to this as 'Korean Anime'? If not, what differentiates them from 'Anime', outsourced from Japan, according to the Western definition?

The only reasonable conclusion I believe a person can draw is that the word is wrong and, as much as it causes people to take up their torches and pitch forks when people say that, it does happen. Language is a living and evolving thing and cannot be stifled for no better reason than pure orthodoxy.

It is right and good that we should have agreed upon definitions, but there is no reason we cannot agree a word to mean something else when the previous agreement no longer makes any sort of rational sense. It was a word that, in the first place, we adapted and have defined to mean something it did not originally and, amazingly, society didn't crumble and we were all able to understand what each other have been talking about.

And so, it is time that we accept that Anime is not a geographic descriptor, but an artistic style with many interpretations.

Now, with all that said, someone please send me 5 Gold for a name change and a link to an avatar border in a Photoshop-friendly format. I won't join your MU and I won't fight, but you'll have Americas most prolific writer sporting your border and what's better than that, really?

Nice to see all of you, again.

Don't ask me to do anything.

Love,