As a hob­by­ist world­forger, Lelangiric’s post and Eternal’s con­tin­u­a­tion on how the mechanics/setting of anime tends to fall short of expec­ta­tions actu­ally ticks me off a lit­tle bit. Not quite because of their view­points, but because mod­ern Japan­ese ani­ma­tion, and much of recent scifi/fantasy in gen­eral, are a rather poor gauge on mea­sur­ing the lit­er­ary val­ues of set­ting cre­ativ­ity. But then, that’s also par­tially our fault as the viewers…

Expo­si­tion start: acti­vate lec­ture mode! (and who remem­bers this old yet remark­able anime?)

By and most in today’s series, we don’t have ‘set­ting’. More pre­cisely, we have a very much watered down ver­sion of ‘set­ting’ which is far bet­ter enti­tled ‘premise’. The dif­fer­ence between these two? A set­ting attempts to round out the details behind all the pri­mary con­cepts and mechan­ics it intro­duce. It goes beyond just those two ini­tial lines of con­cep­tual expla­na­tions and seeks to reflect the cast’s under­stand­ing of their World to the audi­ence, with­out inhi­bi­tions or con­ve­nient cutouts. On the other hand, a premise is a set of con­cepts and mechan­ics sim­ply handed to the audi­ence with min­i­mum scrutiny, and the viewer is expected to accept it in order to make the story work. ‘Premises’ can be upgraded to ‘set­ting’ through sto­ry­telling, but with­out intri­cate detail­ing and/or in-depth analy­sis, it will always remain what is it: merely a premise, a set of ideas and foun­da­tions, not a World.

How does one tell if it is a ‘set­ting’ rather than a ‘premise’? Look upon this uni­verse in which the char­ac­ters reside in, and ask one­self if there are any major con­cepts that the char­ac­ters con­ve­niently brush aside and ignore as if it were an accepted norm. See if there are any top­ics hid­den behind that brief expla­na­tion akin to “there’s a sleep­ing Snor­lax on the road and you can’t get pass it”.

True, all those super­nat­ural ele­ments and pseudo-magic doesn’t nec­es­sar­ily have to make sense. After all, the expla­na­tion for magic is pretty much — magic. But there are things that do stay the same, be it soci­ol­ogy or strat­egy or the human curios­ity for knowl­edge and explo­ration. Peo­ple don’t just accept the exis­tence of a strange ele­ment with­out alter­ing their think­ing pat­terns or inves­ti­gat­ing it. This, is where the dif­fer­ences between set­ting and premise broad­ens: char­ac­ters ques­tion the mechan­ics within a ‘set­ting’ like how New­ton stares at his apple tree.

This is also one of the fore­most rea­sons for sto­ries placed in cre­ative set­tings: char­ac­ter devel­op­ment, as the cast retains their human (or pseudo-human) nature within the for­eign World, try­ing to fig­ure out why their grav­ity works the way it does and how to respond to a soci­ety prop­erly ‘weighed down’ by grav­ity. Obvi­ously, you lose most of this poten­tial within a ‘premise’, as peo­ple sim­ply don’t change if they never think about the World that envelops them.

I don’t think I need to dis­cuss the issue of con­sis­tency. If we start vio­lat­ing physics, something’s wrong. If a set­ting vio­lates its own rules, something’s wrong. Sim­ple as that. The excep­tion is when the cast real­izes said law being vio­lated and starts a shit­storm — then it’s fine. The excep­tion to the excep­tion is when too many laws are being vio­lated… excep­tion to excep­tion to excep­tion — this is like freak­ing chemistry.

.

Exam­ples, Exam­ples: the Good, the Bad

A few crit­i­cal points of fail­ure in pop­u­lar mod­ern scifi/fantasy animes:

  • Shaku­gan no Shana: What’s up with that Crim­son Realm any­ways? Why is the cast still attend­ing school instead of actively solv­ing prob­lems, by planeswalk­ing or destroy­ing gate­ways to stop con­flicts preemptively?
  • Index/Railgun: For a series with remark­able sim­i­lar­i­ties to X-men, all the social impli­ca­tions of hav­ing super-humans are just… miss­ing. Seri­ously, the Accel­er­a­tor rep­re­sents mil­i­tary power to threaten 1st world nations.
  • Evan­ge­lion: The mil­i­tary never prop­erly explored that con­ve­nient AT-Field which made them use­less. The World never seri­ously con­sid­ered or inves­ti­gated the ori­gin and impli­ca­tions of those angels.
  • Any­thing Sun­rise: Too obvi­ous here. How many times did Code Geass make every­one go WTF!? How the fuck does that work? or Why hasn’t any­one noticed this? Same can be said for most of their other series.

I’m actu­ally hav­ing trou­ble think­ing of recent series that man­aged an excep­tional job in con­struct­ing the ‘set­ting’. It may sim­ply be that I watched the wrong series but…

Recent sci­ence fic­tion anime never seem to stand up to the scrutiny of a tra­di­tional scifi fan. New con­cepts are given lit­tle explana­tory expo­sure (what’s up space aids cur­ing), and new races are always cursed by sim­plis­tic psy­chol­ogy. Of course Ranka eas­ily sub­verts all the Zen­tradi in Macross Fron­tier, there’s like zero indi­vid­u­al­ism between them unless they’re at least a notable character.

Recent fan­tasy shows? It feels like the char­ac­ters are always stuck in the mid­dle of their own lit­tle micro­cosm, seg­re­gated from the rest of the world by either space-time defy­ing bound­ing boxes (Nanoha, Shana) or some invis­i­ble veil of secrecy. Either that or the entire set­ting is generic as hell (Zero no Tsukaima).

Those who know the header pic­ture prob­a­bly knows which series I’d present as hav­ing a remark­ably well-established set­ting: The Twelve King­doms intro­duced an entire new world and sep­a­rate social struc­ture, which the story strug­gled to explain to the viewer. They never quite man­aged it, as after all, their Man­date of Heaven is quite lit­er­ally magic. But that didn’t stop its cast from tack­ling the mechan­ics from every philo­soph­i­cal per­spec­tive, attempt­ing to answer the ‘why’ and prob­ing for pos­si­ble mechan­i­cal loop­holes to exploit. Crest/Banner of the Stars is another series which deserves pride in its set­ting, explained in detail and explored in width, from the tac­ti­cal impli­ca­tions of pla­nar space com­bat to the social views on the Abh Empire’s genetic manip­u­la­tion and unique psy­chol­ogy. (Although, since I don’t enjoy lin­guis­tics, that ‘Klin­gon’ lan­guage of theirs annoys me).

Out of the notable recent series, Full­metal Alchemist deserves quite the praise on its ‘set­ting’. Yes, their alchemy is pseudo-science that doesn’t hold up to close scrutiny, but at the moment it’s also not hold­ing up so well to the cast. That’s the notable part: Edward and co are actu­ally react­ing like real human beings to the mechan­ics of this strange World they live in. They seek pur­sue the quest for knowl­edge, to find out why their World works the way it does. Well, look at how much it changed them along the way, and how many story oppor­tu­ni­ties it opened.

Good set­tings tend to be a lit­tle on the aging side as far as anime goes, and not always the most pop­u­lar around…

.

Why is poor set­ting par­tially our fault?

Because many of us don’t appre­ci­ate good set­tings enough. Because we can be appeased by less. Because by and most, the atten­tion span of today’s view­ers suck.

Set­ting takes time to develop. To use ‘set­ting’ to mold char­ac­ter devel­op­ment and sto­ry­board pro­gres­sion you have to explain the details of the mechan­ics, be it through a long expo­si­tion or peri­odic breaks from the main story to tackle the infor­ma­tion. Unfor­tu­nately, pac­ing the expo­si­tion to a scifi/fantasy set­ting is quite tricky. Give out too much infor­ma­tion and the viewer is bored, give out not enough and they’re con­fused. Script writ­ers aren’t per­fect, and peo­ple will mess up (by vary­ing degrees) in one direc­tion or the other. There’s a trend going around and I doubt it took long for pro­duc­ers to notice: less detail­ing is often for­given, for oth­er­wise Sun­rise would have gone bank­rupt by now. On the other hand, more detail­ing is often responded by peo­ple drop­ping out as mod­ern­ized atten­tion spans expire. Well, I know which risk I’ll be tak­ing if I wanted to make money from seri­al­ized pro­duc­tions, espe­cially when those extra min­utes the expla­na­tions will take is cost­ing pre­cious air-time.

Ever since I dropped out from Gun­dam 00 because its ‘pol­i­tics’ and ‘tac­tics’ were killing my brain cells, I’ve began adapt­ing a less seri­ous atti­tude towards most anime: don’t over-analyze how it works, just accept that it works. True, it’s done well in let­ting me enjoy a lot more anime than I would oth­er­wise. But at the same time, this is the kind of atti­tude that pushes stu­dios to lean more towards ‘premise’ and move fur­ther away from ‘setting’.

So what am I com­plain­ing about? That you can’t have both halves of the pie here. Deux Ex will always find their way into high-paced excit­ing sto­ry­lines. If you want your mechan­ics to make sense and applied to full poten­tial, then you’re going to have to risk a few infodumps.

.

Setting-Driven

This is more of a post-note, but I think there are some who prob­a­bly aren’t so aware of the fact: there are setting-driven fans. Actu­ally, a lot of science-fiction and fan­tasy fans love ‘set­ting’ as much as they enjoy sto­ry­lines or char­ac­ters. Not exactly the most com­mon bunch, but they exist, and they’re the type who can actu­ally enjoy shows like Nanoha Strik­ers because it opened the door­way to a whole new world of cre­ative think­ing. So yeah, some of those in-universe jar­gon and crazy con­cepts are also des­ig­nated for this audience.

Hence why there are soft sci­ence fic­tion and hard sci­ence fic­tion: the soft with only com­monly used prin­ci­ples that are easy to under­stand, and the hard­core which can only be under­stood and enjoyed by a technophile (I have no clue what those books are talk­ing about sometimes).

At the same time, world­forg­ers also take a par­tic­u­lar pride for their set­ting design. It’s like how daddy Maes Hughes is proud of his daugh­ter, really, and he just can’t hold back from show­ing it off. So excuse the authors if some of those info­dumps went into some­thing slightly irrel­e­vant: they are just show­ing off and hav­ing fun. Of course, at some point it steps over the line to being unprofessional…

(Author’s ram­bling: I dis­cov­ered I needed a sep­a­rate cat­e­gory for this kind of seri­ous post­ing, and hence begins the Crossvi­sion cat­e­gory)

Pos­si­bly Related Posts

8 Responses to “Decline of ‘Setting’, Appeasement by ‘Premise’”
  1. I may be totally wrong, but it occurs to me that per­haps another way of putting this might be to say that you know “premise” is “set­ting” when it’s a “char­ac­ter” in the story.

    This is prob­a­bly the most bizarre exam­ple, but I was reminded by your ban­ner. If the sakura tree in Da Capo were sim­ply there to grant wishes and that’s it, it would be part of the premise (and in fact there are paths in the games that are like this). But when the nature of the tree, its inter­ac­tions with the world, and the effect it has on all the char­ac­ters in the story becomes a (the?) pri­mary dri­ver of the plot, it’s no longer just “premise” *even though* this exam­ple is clearly fan­tasy and not sci-fi (because the tree is basi­cally “fate” or “god”). The char­ac­ters actu­ally have a rela­tion­ship with the set­ting and this affects and even shapes their growth through­out the story. And because of this, the set­ting needs the same “devel­op­ment” that any char­ac­ter would have, but because the “set­ting” can’t talk*, oth­ers have to “talk” for it (hence the need for expo­si­tion). (Note of course that the tree is prob­a­bly just about the only aspect of Da Capo that could be cat­e­go­rized as “set­ting”, so that’s why I rec­og­nize that it’s a weird exam­ple. It’s prob­a­bly eas­ier to dis­cuss this whole thing with sci-fi exam­ples rather than loose fantasy.)

    * I say the set­ting can’t talk, but there are nar­ra­tive “tricks” for this, of course. For exam­ple, the char­ac­ter hap­pen to walk by a TV and the news is on and we “lis­ten in” for a moment. But clearly, the main way the set­ting “talks” is through the char­ac­ters’ strug­gles with it (either past or present).

    • Aorii says:

      That’s prob­a­bly a con­cise way to put it, although I find it a bit harder to wrap my head around.

      Your exam­ple on Da Capo is a direct hit, and my mind had com­pletely skipped over that for some rea­son. Maybe it’s because, as you say, the Sakura tree is pretty much the only set­ting piece in that series. Of course, most of Da Capo doesn’t depart that far from the norm (except Miharu and her suc­ces­sor). The eter­nal sakura tree how­ever, gave birth to the two pieces of drama that really made Da Capo worth­while for me.

      Well yes, set­tings can ‘talk’, but there aren’t many ways to do it out­side bla­tant expo­si­tion scenes, and the infor­ma­tive con­tent of those scenes are always… lim­ited. So when you come down to it, you still have to ‘con­verse’ with the set­ting through another medium, as if it were a ‘char­ac­ter’ that needs developing.

  2. lelangir says:

    Yeah, like the hilar­i­ous [but also inter­est­ing, IMO] meta info-dumps in LoGH.

    • Aorii says:

      Ah LoGH, there’s some­thing I prob­a­bly need to watch, although that 110 episode num­ber is a real dis-encourager, not to men­tion the ship designs and pilot suits I’ve seen of it looked like some­thing that jumped out of Star Wars.

  3. […] fic­tion and s’life is a good way to artic­u­late the dif­fer­ence between premise and set­ting, as Aorii writes (if “premise” is plot, then set­ting is the uni­verse in which premise/plot is situated). […]

  4. This was an excel­lent read, and it really made me recon­sider the shows I enjoyed the most from the past decade. How­ever, I came to the con­clu­sion that my attrac­tion toward “premise-driven” anime is less related to atten­tion span than it is to my appre­ci­a­tion for the sur­real, for enig­mas shrouded in mystery.

    Obvi­ously there are a lot of shows that suf­fer from just plain lazi­ness on the part of the writ­ers (all of Type Moon’s and CLAMP’s shit come to mind, as enjoy­able as they were), but check out Miyazaki’s entire cat­a­logue, or Gankut­suou (this espe­cially; the space theme was com­pletely out of left field), or even the brief but excel­lent Cen­coroll. In the case of Miyazaki, the main appeal of his work is how he teases us with the unex­plain­able. It’s like sur­real poetry; images work together some­how and the mean­ing and logic behind those images are less impor­tant than the impres­sion they leave us with. The qual­ity of the exam­ples I gave would be severely com­pro­mised if the writ­ers were to sud­denly pro­vide expo­si­tion on their gim­micks. Some­times half worlds are bet­ter off being half worlds.
    ParkAnimation´s last blog ..Ongo­ing Anime: Durarara!! – 01 My ComLuv Profile

  5. ETERNAL says:

    I already had my say on the topic so I don’t have any­thing to add, but good post. You did a good job of defin­ing the dif­fer­ence between the suc­cess­ful and not-so-successful setting-driven sto­ries, and the set­ting vs premise con­cept is a use­ful one to keep in mind.
    ETERNAL´s last blog ..Aim­ing for the Harem End, Or Not – An Eroge The­ory My ComLuv Profile

  6. Aorii says:

    @ParkAnimation: Well I guess I see where you’re com­ing from, some­thing leav­ing the sur­real in its own is nice, goes along the psy­cho­log­i­cal aspect that man’s obses­sion increases with mys­te­ri­ous­ness. I can’t agree with that from a world­forger per­spec­tive though (=9). We have an inher­ent flaw of want­ing to expand upon every inter­est con­cept we get in touch with…

    @Eternal: Yeah, although some­times it’s fine to just rate premise as ‘premise’ rather than com­par­ing it against ‘set­ting’, see­ing as set­ting devel­op­ment is sim­ply too under­rated these days to be both­ered with half the time D=

  7.  
Leave a Reply

CommentLuv Enabled