English Title: Captive Hearts
Japanese Title: Toraware no Minoue
Author: Hino Matsuri
English Publisher: Viz Media
Anime?: No.
Summary: Kuroishi Megumi's family has been cursed to serve the Kogami family since the Muromachi era. As the Kogami family's been missing for fourteen years or so, no one bothers to tell unsuspecting Megumi about the curse until Kogami Suzuka shows up. Megumi has fits of intense servility around her; Suzuka has fits of non-curse-induced shiness around him. The two spend their days being dumb and adorable at each other.
It has finally happened. I've waited not-so-patiently as Merupuri, Vampire Knight and even Wanted cropped up on the shelves of my local bookstores, and Hino Matsuri's Toraware no Minoue has finally been licensed in English.
Toraware no Minoue, or Captive Hearts, was one of the first "femdom" manga to catch my attention back when it first started making the scanlation/fansite circuit. Intrigued, I ordered the five tankoubon online and taught myself kana by trying to translate the first few volumes from Japanese to English on my own. (I'm, uh, still working on that . . . yeah.) For this reason, I have a fairly strong personal attachment to the manga, though I suspect that my (blind) admiration for the work predates my days as a discerning manga consumer, so I'll do my best to try to remain objective in this "spotlight."
Art: The art is pretty and technically well-done, though it's clear that the mangaka was still getting a feel for the look of her characters, especially in early cover and filler art. Hino Matsuri tends not to focus much on differentiation in character design. The primary cast of Captive Hearts is thankfully small enough (1 adult male, 1 young male, 1 young biological female and 1 transgender female) that eye shape and hairstyle are usually sufficient as distinguishing features. (This is a different story than in, say, Vampire Knight, where the huge cast of bishounen vampires should really come with a chart or something--actually, this being shoujo manga, they may very well come with a chart. I will have to double-check.) The page design is busy to the point of looking a bit frantic, but this suits the rather slapstick humor that the series occasionally delves into, and I find it a nice change of pace from the more standard shoujo images of wide-eyed closeups and flowery backgrounds.
Plot: The servant's curse is a nice twist on the standard shoujo "boy meets girl" fare, and I like that we see the action from both Megumi's and Suzuka's points of view. Thankfully, the romance picks up pretty quickly, so we don't have to wade through the "Now I like him now I don't, now he likes me and I don't like him, now I like him but he stopped liking me, etc." mood swings that a lot of shoujo titles have fun tormenting us with.
Characters: Suzuka is sweet as a puppy, cute as a puppy, innocent as a puppy, enthusiastic as a puppy, and probably about as smart as . . . you get the idea. Megumi is ever-so-slightly more complex, and would probably be a pretty unbearable Standard Issue Bishounen Jerk(TM) if his curse had never shown up (though we only see a scant few pages of his life before Suzuka, so nothing is certain on that front). Megumi's overly enthusiastic father is pretty enjoyable, though he's mostly used for exposition and recurring "discipline" gags in the first volume.
Side Stories: The first volume has two side stories that take up too many pages for my taste. These are more or less Standard Issue shoujo stories, and lack the imagination and sense of fun that make the main plot so enjoyable.
Captive Hearts has romance, an ancient Chinese curse, an ancient Chinese dragon, and just enough bondage gags to qualify as femdom fanservice. All in all, it's a fun little title that touches briefly on the relationship between service and love, but mostly just takes its "servant curse" premise and runs with it.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
What's Not on TV: an Armchair Feminist Take
There are many other things I could be doing. There are many other things I should be doing. However, at the end of a very busy week, what I somehow want to do is blog about TV shows. TV shows have been haunting me lately. I look at a piece of feminist theory these days, and it inevitably invokes a kind of feminist TV nostalgia.
Hypothesis: Even though we pretend that modern-day entertainment media is progressive, egalitarian and so Girl Power that we might as well just sit back and enjoy the show(s), television serials have actually been getting less feminist in the last ten years, and instead of addressing this problem, we close our eyes and think of England (that was for you, Shadowedge). Buffy is just the exception that proves the rule.
Things I miss in/on television:
Girls who talk to each other about things other than sex, men, fashion and the main (usually male) character of any given series. Now repeat the previous sentence, replacing "girls" with "women." I also miss the presentation of "women" in television. You know, women with problems beyond stinky relationships with men.
Once upon a day, from the mid-80s to the 90s, we had TV shows that offered things that are no longer being offered on "mainstream" cable television.
Allow me to submit the following evidence for the court's consideration:
Kate & Allie (1984-1989)
Who's the Boss? (1984-1992)
The Golden Girls (1985-1992)
Designing Women (1986-1993)
Myrphy Brown (1988-1989)
Caroline in the City (1995-1999)
What do these shows have in common? 1. The women have lives. 2. The women have (or have had) jobs. 3. The women are the main characters, and speak to other women about things that are not necessarily guys.
Just for fun, let's try a little "Then and Now" exercise using Designing Women and the comparatively modern (and by now, thoroughly mainstreamed) hit Sex and the City:
Julia = Miranda
Mary Jo = Carrie
Charlene = Charlotte
Suzanne = Samantha
How new and progressive does Sex and the City seem now, really?
Alright, so maybe that's a little unfair to late-night TV's favorite PR agent, but it still matches up pretty well: you've got your uberfeminist, your "normal" girl, your innocent damsel and your Queen Bee.
Now, just for kicks, let's try it again with The Golden Girls:
Blanche = Samantha
Rose = Charlotte
Dorothy = Miranda/Carrie
Sophia = all the recurring snarky people (mostly gay male friends)
It's a shame that I can't much up the four women in one show with the four women in the next, but Bea Arthur's character provides both the "normal person" glue of Carrie and the "no nonsense edge" of Miranda in one convenient package, while Sophia exists to add a lot of pointed one-liners that do not usually have an impact on any episode storyline, no matter how silly.
Is this a sign of stagnation in the televised presentation of women in groups? Maybe so, maybe not. Perhaps any fictional group of approximately 4 people needs an innocent/idiot, a "strong" character, a "glamorous" character and an everyman/woman. Someone should look into it. At this moment, I'm not volunteering, but I am willing to start:
The bi-gendered, uber-formulaic Will & Grace gets awfully close to the above formula, only with two everypersons (Will & Grace), one Queen Bee (who pulls double duty as an idiot, triple if you count her breasts as well) and one standard-issue idiot. Will & Grace may get mad props for trying to make it "okay to be gay" on plain old mainstream American television, but its utter lack of strong female characters, strong gay characters, strong characters of any kind and successful, long term gay partnerships makes it something I would not recommend to, well, anyone. Do self-respecting women see themselves or an acceptable role model in Grace? In (gack!) Karen? Are the men in the show any better, as role models or fictional stand-ins for anyone, no matter what gender or sexual orientation? If I want to look at a televised interior designer and think "role model," I'll take Dixie Carter over Debra Messing any day.
I hate Will & Grace and I am not a homophobe, at least as far as I know. If there is a petition out there for "Please, please, you Hollywood jerks, make a sitcom about a gay couple rather than a heteronormative show that just includes gay people who never get to have fully developed love lives or even on-screen TLC," let me know and I will rush to sign it. I would love to see that show. (Queer as Folk does not meet this criterion for me. If you are, whether bi, gay, straight, narcissist, omni or whatever, watching that show for a reason other than the hot guys, you confuse me.) Actually, if that petition does not exist, maybe I should create one . . .
But back to presentations of women. Some more of the positive: Murphy Brown.
Murphy Brown does some things that I'm not sure have ever been done since. Murphy defines herself through her career rather than her sexuality, but manages to still be a sexually active woman who does not spend all of her time freaking out about whether she can ever find Mr. Big--I mean Mr. Right. Yes, she is a stereotypical ball-busting feminist. (I would love to argue that she transcends stereotype and embodies an Archetypal Feminist, but that might be more of a fun intellectual exercise than anything else--and I would have to watch the show again.) She can be mean, scary and rude. At the same time, there is something absolutely wonderful about a woman who can express anger openly without facing Dire Consequences every time that she does. Sure, Murphy's over-the-top, but when so many women were (and still are) taught that it's Wrong to express desire, frustration, anger, themselves, a little on-screen pushiness that does not instantly turn a woman into a social untouchable becomes a blessing in and of itself.
Murphy also acts (and dresses) professionally without gratuitously (yes, I'm looking at you, Samantha) showing off her "assets" (what a horribly mercantile term for parts of our own bodies). We know that Murphy, unlike many modern-day heroines, does not need to and would not exchange sexual or sexualized "favors" (even favors so relatively tame as glimpses of cleavage given Erin Brokavich-style) to get what she needs to get in order to get her job done: she would never shtoop to conquer.
I love Murphy Brown. I grew up with her, and the zaniness of the cast's adventures never really registered with me. I thought the show was "realistic," and I think that in the end this was a boon, because it meant that I thought a strong, aggressive woman with a high-powered job and, eventually, a child that she raised on her own was realistic. I thought that I could be powerful, aggressive and single, with no Cinderella makeover, and still be "successful" when I grew up.
Where are all the modern shows about women in jobs that focus on women in jobs and not on the sex lives of women in jobs?
The most recent show on my Feminist Nostalgia list is Caroline in the City, and even though it offers up veritable mountains of ridiculous, I can't help but love it. Reason I love it the first: Caroline has a male employee. As you can probably tell from the general nature of this blog, I am a big sucker for the femdom/malesub dynamic in fiction.
Reason the second: it's about a female cartoonist. ::swoon:: Not only does Caroline have a job, but she has a job on my short list of personal dream-jobs. That comes complete with a cute male assistant. Female fantasy, anyone? Wish fulfillment that might actually appeal to women for once? What a concept.
Seriously. What a concept. It may seem obvious, but so many current TV writers and producers are missing the boat on this one.
Speaking of female-targeted wish fulfillment: Aside from the overall cheesiness that reaches and then surpasses critical mass in its later seasons, all that Who's the Boss really needs to apologize for is its name. Who's the Boss? is not a legitimate question; the two main characters have an employer/employee relationship (though Barney's answer in How I Met Your Mother certainly has the ring of truth--so perhaps it is a legitimate question, with the rivals for the title being Angela and Mona rather than Angela and Tony). Be that as it may, the show has a lot going for it. Yes, yes, I'm far too easy on shows with female employers and male domestics, but I think they're important, if only because they constitute such a small force to stand up against the scads of shows with female domestics (Will & Grace, Two and a Half Men, The Nanny (which does offer compensatory butler-service, but sadly has women relegated to the position of only employees and children--at least until marriage) Arrested Development, even Sex and the City, etc.). And while the witty butler is an enjoyable trope, he generally only shows up in technically male-dominant shows and relationships (Nanny, Fresh Prince). To the Manor Born makes a lovely exception, but we had to import that.
A side note: I remember seeing previews for a sitcom about a divorced man who became the butler to his ex-wife and family. Did anything ever come of that? It looked pretty terrible, and it was hard to watch even the previews without feeling just a little too humiliated on his behalf, but I would be interested to see how the power dynamics played out.
Anyway, Tony is not a snarky butler. He starts the show as a "man's man," and one of the show's many (cheesy, not wrong) after-school-special messages is that he can be a "man" and a homemaker at the same time. He may lose some machismo points in the pursuit of his job, but the message from day one is: If you're man enough, you can take that kind of thing. While many modern women might think twice before inviting Tony Danza into their homes (he's one of those fascinatingly iconic, perpetually typecast TV actors who we tend no longer to envision as Real People), we can choose to accept the show's premise that he's a cute, dumb, friendly guy. Hmmm . . . a cute, friendly guy who waits on a "high-powered executive" woman. Affectionately. Where are there other TV shows like this? Is there even porn like this? We look at it now, and we can complain about the name. "We could never make a show like that now," we think. "It would be offensive to build a show on the 'female employer/male employee' dynamic as if it were something unusual and strange."
Well, fine. We got rid of the shows that offered that dynamic as an offensive "exception," but where are all the shows that offer it as the norm?
Hypothesis: Even though we pretend that modern-day entertainment media is progressive, egalitarian and so Girl Power that we might as well just sit back and enjoy the show(s), television serials have actually been getting less feminist in the last ten years, and instead of addressing this problem, we close our eyes and think of England (that was for you, Shadowedge). Buffy is just the exception that proves the rule.
Things I miss in/on television:
Girls who talk to each other about things other than sex, men, fashion and the main (usually male) character of any given series. Now repeat the previous sentence, replacing "girls" with "women." I also miss the presentation of "women" in television. You know, women with problems beyond stinky relationships with men.
Once upon a day, from the mid-80s to the 90s, we had TV shows that offered things that are no longer being offered on "mainstream" cable television.
Allow me to submit the following evidence for the court's consideration:
Kate & Allie (1984-1989)
Who's the Boss? (1984-1992)
The Golden Girls (1985-1992)
Designing Women (1986-1993)
Myrphy Brown (1988-1989)
Caroline in the City (1995-1999)
What do these shows have in common? 1. The women have lives. 2. The women have (or have had) jobs. 3. The women are the main characters, and speak to other women about things that are not necessarily guys.
Just for fun, let's try a little "Then and Now" exercise using Designing Women and the comparatively modern (and by now, thoroughly mainstreamed) hit Sex and the City:
Julia = Miranda
Mary Jo = Carrie
Charlene = Charlotte
Suzanne = Samantha
How new and progressive does Sex and the City seem now, really?
Alright, so maybe that's a little unfair to late-night TV's favorite PR agent, but it still matches up pretty well: you've got your uberfeminist, your "normal" girl, your innocent damsel and your Queen Bee.
Now, just for kicks, let's try it again with The Golden Girls:
Blanche = Samantha
Rose = Charlotte
Dorothy = Miranda/Carrie
Sophia = all the recurring snarky people (mostly gay male friends)
It's a shame that I can't much up the four women in one show with the four women in the next, but Bea Arthur's character provides both the "normal person" glue of Carrie and the "no nonsense edge" of Miranda in one convenient package, while Sophia exists to add a lot of pointed one-liners that do not usually have an impact on any episode storyline, no matter how silly.
Is this a sign of stagnation in the televised presentation of women in groups? Maybe so, maybe not. Perhaps any fictional group of approximately 4 people needs an innocent/idiot, a "strong" character, a "glamorous" character and an everyman/woman. Someone should look into it. At this moment, I'm not volunteering, but I am willing to start:
The bi-gendered, uber-formulaic Will & Grace gets awfully close to the above formula, only with two everypersons (Will & Grace), one Queen Bee (who pulls double duty as an idiot, triple if you count her breasts as well) and one standard-issue idiot. Will & Grace may get mad props for trying to make it "okay to be gay" on plain old mainstream American television, but its utter lack of strong female characters, strong gay characters, strong characters of any kind and successful, long term gay partnerships makes it something I would not recommend to, well, anyone. Do self-respecting women see themselves or an acceptable role model in Grace? In (gack!) Karen? Are the men in the show any better, as role models or fictional stand-ins for anyone, no matter what gender or sexual orientation? If I want to look at a televised interior designer and think "role model," I'll take Dixie Carter over Debra Messing any day.
I hate Will & Grace and I am not a homophobe, at least as far as I know. If there is a petition out there for "Please, please, you Hollywood jerks, make a sitcom about a gay couple rather than a heteronormative show that just includes gay people who never get to have fully developed love lives or even on-screen TLC," let me know and I will rush to sign it. I would love to see that show. (Queer as Folk does not meet this criterion for me. If you are, whether bi, gay, straight, narcissist, omni or whatever, watching that show for a reason other than the hot guys, you confuse me.) Actually, if that petition does not exist, maybe I should create one . . .
But back to presentations of women. Some more of the positive: Murphy Brown.
Murphy Brown does some things that I'm not sure have ever been done since. Murphy defines herself through her career rather than her sexuality, but manages to still be a sexually active woman who does not spend all of her time freaking out about whether she can ever find Mr. Big--I mean Mr. Right. Yes, she is a stereotypical ball-busting feminist. (I would love to argue that she transcends stereotype and embodies an Archetypal Feminist, but that might be more of a fun intellectual exercise than anything else--and I would have to watch the show again.) She can be mean, scary and rude. At the same time, there is something absolutely wonderful about a woman who can express anger openly without facing Dire Consequences every time that she does. Sure, Murphy's over-the-top, but when so many women were (and still are) taught that it's Wrong to express desire, frustration, anger, themselves, a little on-screen pushiness that does not instantly turn a woman into a social untouchable becomes a blessing in and of itself.
Murphy also acts (and dresses) professionally without gratuitously (yes, I'm looking at you, Samantha) showing off her "assets" (what a horribly mercantile term for parts of our own bodies). We know that Murphy, unlike many modern-day heroines, does not need to and would not exchange sexual or sexualized "favors" (even favors so relatively tame as glimpses of cleavage given Erin Brokavich-style) to get what she needs to get in order to get her job done: she would never shtoop to conquer.
I love Murphy Brown. I grew up with her, and the zaniness of the cast's adventures never really registered with me. I thought the show was "realistic," and I think that in the end this was a boon, because it meant that I thought a strong, aggressive woman with a high-powered job and, eventually, a child that she raised on her own was realistic. I thought that I could be powerful, aggressive and single, with no Cinderella makeover, and still be "successful" when I grew up.
Where are all the modern shows about women in jobs that focus on women in jobs and not on the sex lives of women in jobs?
The most recent show on my Feminist Nostalgia list is Caroline in the City, and even though it offers up veritable mountains of ridiculous, I can't help but love it. Reason I love it the first: Caroline has a male employee. As you can probably tell from the general nature of this blog, I am a big sucker for the femdom/malesub dynamic in fiction.
Reason the second: it's about a female cartoonist. ::swoon:: Not only does Caroline have a job, but she has a job on my short list of personal dream-jobs. That comes complete with a cute male assistant. Female fantasy, anyone? Wish fulfillment that might actually appeal to women for once? What a concept.
Seriously. What a concept. It may seem obvious, but so many current TV writers and producers are missing the boat on this one.
Speaking of female-targeted wish fulfillment: Aside from the overall cheesiness that reaches and then surpasses critical mass in its later seasons, all that Who's the Boss really needs to apologize for is its name. Who's the Boss? is not a legitimate question; the two main characters have an employer/employee relationship (though Barney's answer in How I Met Your Mother certainly has the ring of truth--so perhaps it is a legitimate question, with the rivals for the title being Angela and Mona rather than Angela and Tony). Be that as it may, the show has a lot going for it. Yes, yes, I'm far too easy on shows with female employers and male domestics, but I think they're important, if only because they constitute such a small force to stand up against the scads of shows with female domestics (Will & Grace, Two and a Half Men, The Nanny (which does offer compensatory butler-service, but sadly has women relegated to the position of only employees and children--at least until marriage) Arrested Development, even Sex and the City, etc.). And while the witty butler is an enjoyable trope, he generally only shows up in technically male-dominant shows and relationships (Nanny, Fresh Prince). To the Manor Born makes a lovely exception, but we had to import that.
A side note: I remember seeing previews for a sitcom about a divorced man who became the butler to his ex-wife and family. Did anything ever come of that? It looked pretty terrible, and it was hard to watch even the previews without feeling just a little too humiliated on his behalf, but I would be interested to see how the power dynamics played out.
Anyway, Tony is not a snarky butler. He starts the show as a "man's man," and one of the show's many (cheesy, not wrong) after-school-special messages is that he can be a "man" and a homemaker at the same time. He may lose some machismo points in the pursuit of his job, but the message from day one is: If you're man enough, you can take that kind of thing. While many modern women might think twice before inviting Tony Danza into their homes (he's one of those fascinatingly iconic, perpetually typecast TV actors who we tend no longer to envision as Real People), we can choose to accept the show's premise that he's a cute, dumb, friendly guy. Hmmm . . . a cute, friendly guy who waits on a "high-powered executive" woman. Affectionately. Where are there other TV shows like this? Is there even porn like this? We look at it now, and we can complain about the name. "We could never make a show like that now," we think. "It would be offensive to build a show on the 'female employer/male employee' dynamic as if it were something unusual and strange."
Well, fine. We got rid of the shows that offered that dynamic as an offensive "exception," but where are all the shows that offer it as the norm?
Friday, August 22, 2008
Spotlight #1: Hayate the Combat Butler
English Title: Hayate the Combat Butler
Japanese Title: Hayate no Gotoku
Author: Kenjiro Hata
English Publisher: Viz Media
Anime?: Yes.
Summary: Protagonist's good-for-nothing, debt-ridden parents sell him to the yakuza and he ends up working as a butler for the rich girl who rescues him with money.
I have nothing against a boys' harem manga when it's done well, and Hayate is harem manga done well. The main male character is actually the kind of clueless sweetie you can see girls (and by "girls" it's possible I mean "me") falling for and the female characters cropping up left, right and center happen to be interesting and sympathetic (or at least funny enough that you don't care how horrible they are). To add frosting to this cake of sensible characterization, there are significant male characters in the story who are not the protagonist!
For those of you have have read widely in the harem genre, I'll give you a moment for that to sink in. For those of you who have not and are wondering why I think that's such a big deal, please see Kagetora, Maharomatic, Hand Maid May, Hanaukyo Maids Tai, He is My Master and/or Kage Kara Mamoru for reference, and you'll see my point.
Wow, just think of it: a world not limited to one guy and a bunch of girls! And while a lot of the girls are, inevitably, falling for Sweet But Clueless, the guys in the mix are just as capable of harboring their own secret crushes.
As far as fanservice goes, Hayate is delightfully and unapologetically equal opportunity. There are definitely some cute maids around (please note the prevalence of maids in the harem titles listed above), but the "maid-service" is happily balanced by, well, "butler-service," provided mostly (but not exclusively) by Hayate himself. Explicit fanservice elements include things like Hayate in a (female) "neko" costume and his "ojousama" in maid costume.
The series also tweaks the concept of fanservice a bit: since Hayate and his coworker Maria wear their butler and maid costumes on an everyday basis, it becomes a form of "fanservice" pretty much anytime they put on anything else, like street clothes or school uniforms.
However, the quite tame fanservice elements of the story are, thankfully, not the point (see that list of other harem titles again to remind yourself why that's so important), as Hayate the Combat Butler is, of course, a comedy. And in this case, that's not just a generic distinction used to keep from having to call it proto-porn (which it's not, just to be clear, but stuff like He is My Master makes me die a little inside); Hayate, unlike far too many of its fellow harem titles, is actually funny.
Aside from the highly adorable Hayate, the character who puts this series on my Top 10 manga to Take to a Desert Island list is the female lead, Sanzenin Nagi. While she is the short, cute, bossy, violent rich-girl stereotype, she somehow manages to be really likable at the same time. And while this could be because she's prone to the occasional random act of generosity, maturity or kindness, her likability is probably largely due to the fact that she is a complete otaku.
Nagi is the kind of fangirl who writes her own frenetic, poorly drawn and plot-less action/fantasy manga (We see several examples of it throughout the series, and it's a treat!) and sends it to contests expecting to win. She is also the kind of enormously rich fangirl who has different rooms for different game consoles. And while she is as "girly" (in the frills-and-knee socks way) as girly can be in terms of looks and dress, her taste runs towards the kinds of action-packed manga and video games that would normally be considered boys' fare. She also has a combination of skewed pragmatism and aggressive laziness that I don't feel I see often enough in female manga characters, or female characters in general.
This goes on my femdom list, obviously, because the primary pairing is female master/ male servant. It gets high marks on that list partly because both characters really embrace these roles and think (inasmuch as characters in this genre "think") about the responsibilities they have towards one another within this dynamic. Hayate, grateful to his rich young savior, goes about trying to please his "ojousama" with an attitude of puppy-like devotion. The ojousama in question, for her part, does her best to think about what her duties as Hayate's "master" are and tries to do right by him.
And if all that's not enough, there are giant robots.
Japanese Title: Hayate no Gotoku
Author: Kenjiro Hata
English Publisher: Viz Media
Anime?: Yes.
Summary: Protagonist's good-for-nothing, debt-ridden parents sell him to the yakuza and he ends up working as a butler for the rich girl who rescues him with money.
I have nothing against a boys' harem manga when it's done well, and Hayate is harem manga done well. The main male character is actually the kind of clueless sweetie you can see girls (and by "girls" it's possible I mean "me") falling for and the female characters cropping up left, right and center happen to be interesting and sympathetic (or at least funny enough that you don't care how horrible they are). To add frosting to this cake of sensible characterization, there are significant male characters in the story who are not the protagonist!
For those of you have have read widely in the harem genre, I'll give you a moment for that to sink in. For those of you who have not and are wondering why I think that's such a big deal, please see Kagetora, Maharomatic, Hand Maid May, Hanaukyo Maids Tai, He is My Master and/or Kage Kara Mamoru for reference, and you'll see my point.
Wow, just think of it: a world not limited to one guy and a bunch of girls! And while a lot of the girls are, inevitably, falling for Sweet But Clueless, the guys in the mix are just as capable of harboring their own secret crushes.
As far as fanservice goes, Hayate is delightfully and unapologetically equal opportunity. There are definitely some cute maids around (please note the prevalence of maids in the harem titles listed above), but the "maid-service" is happily balanced by, well, "butler-service," provided mostly (but not exclusively) by Hayate himself. Explicit fanservice elements include things like Hayate in a (female) "neko" costume and his "ojousama" in maid costume.
The series also tweaks the concept of fanservice a bit: since Hayate and his coworker Maria wear their butler and maid costumes on an everyday basis, it becomes a form of "fanservice" pretty much anytime they put on anything else, like street clothes or school uniforms.
However, the quite tame fanservice elements of the story are, thankfully, not the point (see that list of other harem titles again to remind yourself why that's so important), as Hayate the Combat Butler is, of course, a comedy. And in this case, that's not just a generic distinction used to keep from having to call it proto-porn (which it's not, just to be clear, but stuff like He is My Master makes me die a little inside); Hayate, unlike far too many of its fellow harem titles, is actually funny.
Aside from the highly adorable Hayate, the character who puts this series on my Top 10 manga to Take to a Desert Island list is the female lead, Sanzenin Nagi. While she is the short, cute, bossy, violent rich-girl stereotype, she somehow manages to be really likable at the same time. And while this could be because she's prone to the occasional random act of generosity, maturity or kindness, her likability is probably largely due to the fact that she is a complete otaku.
Nagi is the kind of fangirl who writes her own frenetic, poorly drawn and plot-less action/fantasy manga (We see several examples of it throughout the series, and it's a treat!) and sends it to contests expecting to win. She is also the kind of enormously rich fangirl who has different rooms for different game consoles. And while she is as "girly" (in the frills-and-knee socks way) as girly can be in terms of looks and dress, her taste runs towards the kinds of action-packed manga and video games that would normally be considered boys' fare. She also has a combination of skewed pragmatism and aggressive laziness that I don't feel I see often enough in female manga characters, or female characters in general.
This goes on my femdom list, obviously, because the primary pairing is female master/ male servant. It gets high marks on that list partly because both characters really embrace these roles and think (inasmuch as characters in this genre "think") about the responsibilities they have towards one another within this dynamic. Hayate, grateful to his rich young savior, goes about trying to please his "ojousama" with an attitude of puppy-like devotion. The ojousama in question, for her part, does her best to think about what her duties as Hayate's "master" are and tries to do right by him.
And if all that's not enough, there are giant robots.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
"No Soy un Artista"
In one of the many Spanish classes I took during my formative years, we were required to write short bios for historical figures and deliver them to the rest of the class. Instead of dressing in costume, we were to make and "wear" (they were mostly poster board glued to popsicle stick handles) a mask of our persona of choice. One girl shyly held up her mask and announced by way of apology, "No soy un artista" before beginning her speech.
So what? It was a language class after all, right? And yet none of us were immune to the compulsion to compare our skills as "artists," to decide whose mask was beautiful, whose sketchy, whose wretched. It was a competition with all judges and no prize.
So many times, I see my friends and colleagues drawing, for one reason or another, and then apologizing for it. Offering disclaimers: "I'm not an artist." "I can't draw." "No soy un artista."
I started to think that this was what I was supposed to do . . . that this was what I had to do . . . I had no real formal training, no publications, no dazzling portfolio, no proof I was an artist. My work did not look sleek, polished, professional, as-good-as-this-guy's-or-that-guy's, so I ought to be apologizing for it, right? Forgive me. Lo siento. It's not very good. "I can't draw." And the more I said it, the more true it became.
I fell into this habit once more not too long ago, and the gentleman I was speaking to said something along the lines of, "You see, I don't accept that. I hate it when people draw and then say they can't draw." I hated it too. Honestly. Fervently. Passionately. So why had I apologized, yet again, for something that I love to do?
I suppose my desire to stop verbally negating what I create in a visual medium is one of the reasons I've ended up posting so much of what I draw. It's an attempt to step aside, offer what I can do and have done, and do my damnedest not to apologize for not being better. It could always be better. I could always be better. Without the possibility of improvement, what would we artists strive for?
So what? It was a language class after all, right? And yet none of us were immune to the compulsion to compare our skills as "artists," to decide whose mask was beautiful, whose sketchy, whose wretched. It was a competition with all judges and no prize.
So many times, I see my friends and colleagues drawing, for one reason or another, and then apologizing for it. Offering disclaimers: "I'm not an artist." "I can't draw." "No soy un artista."
I started to think that this was what I was supposed to do . . . that this was what I had to do . . . I had no real formal training, no publications, no dazzling portfolio, no proof I was an artist. My work did not look sleek, polished, professional, as-good-as-this-guy's-or-that-guy's, so I ought to be apologizing for it, right? Forgive me. Lo siento. It's not very good. "I can't draw." And the more I said it, the more true it became.
I fell into this habit once more not too long ago, and the gentleman I was speaking to said something along the lines of, "You see, I don't accept that. I hate it when people draw and then say they can't draw." I hated it too. Honestly. Fervently. Passionately. So why had I apologized, yet again, for something that I love to do?
I suppose my desire to stop verbally negating what I create in a visual medium is one of the reasons I've ended up posting so much of what I draw. It's an attempt to step aside, offer what I can do and have done, and do my damnedest not to apologize for not being better. It could always be better. I could always be better. Without the possibility of improvement, what would we artists strive for?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Why this blog exists
This blog is for me to discuss why I draw, what I read, what I love and what I fear. It will also include a regular spotlight on anime and manga in which the girls are on top. I will be posting quasi-philosophical commentary on what drawing means to me, quasi-academic responses to "femdom" anime & manga titles and rants on why "femdom" titles are important. I will also examine non-femdom titles in the context of their presentation of gender dynamics and treatment of female characters.
For the purposes of this blog, I'm defining a "femdom" title as any work in which the primary female character has actual authority over the primary male character. While female-over-female power dynamics could also validly be defined as femdom, I will not be categorizing them as such, for the simple reason that they tend not to invert the traditional power structure found in most available manga & anime in the same way.
For the purposes of this blog, I'm defining a "femdom" title as any work in which the primary female character has actual authority over the primary male character. While female-over-female power dynamics could also validly be defined as femdom, I will not be categorizing them as such, for the simple reason that they tend not to invert the traditional power structure found in most available manga & anime in the same way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)