Forum - View topicREVIEW: The Anime Encyclopedia Third Revised Edition
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
doc-watson42
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 1709 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Hi! I'm not Dr. Clements or Ms. McCarthy, but I was a significant contributor to TAE 3rd.
For those looking for a more academic book, see Dr. Clements' dissertation or the book based on it, Anime: A History.
There is an E-mail address at the end of the Publisher's Note to report any errors (it's been there since the first edition). (That's how I got the job—I've been sending updates and error reports since the first edition was almost new.) Macron One: A friend spotted the "boy love interest" part some weeks back and I reported it, but I'll be glad to pass along the other half of that one. 
The book's policy on titles. If (as you describe) you find a mistake, or an entry which is missing an official title for a show that has been released in English, please do report that too.
AFAIK there are no plans are this time for a softcover edition—only the library-quality hardcover and the e-book. Statistics: 1200 pages 1.1 million words Over 3800 entries, of which 1200 are new 5,000 corrections One thing that has been missed, both in the review and the above discussion, is that each entry in the e-book edition is linked to a Web site (usually Wikipedia, the ANN Encyclopedia, or aniSearch.com, though sometimes I had to resort to Japanese-language sites; I avoided MyAnimeList and AniDB because they are sources of fansubs, and a publishing company does not need the legal hassles entailed in those). I made certain that at the very least the site had the show's title in Japanese, so that the readers could research more information on their own. Also, a Web site for the book is in development, which will include all of the links from the e-book edition, plus several for which there was no room (some entries for the most obscure shows needed two links for complete coverage, but time and the technology only allowed for one per entry). |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
GWOtaku
 Posts: 678 |
|
|||||||||||||||
Think of it as a fusion of both and you'll be nearest the mark, in my opinion. I truly think there is not a better book for getting informed about anime. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Dessa
 Posts: 4438 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
IMO, as long as the book has MULTIPLE UNCONNECTED SERIES listed as the same entry, under a title that NONE of them have gone under, in either Japanese or English, the book is worthless.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
GWOtaku
Posts: 678 |
|
|||||||||||||||
So one mistake as you see it = no value for an entire book. Really? Also, do you have any examples of this? |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
BassKuroi
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Take off your mask already, Dr. Clements. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Shippoyasha
Posts: 459 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Yeah. I talked to miss McCarthy over the male gaze thing and I honestly couldn't have disagreed more. I don't want to call anyone an 'Shonen Jump Weekly' but she is following that whole 'sexual content = males only' lingo too strictly. I wasn't a huge fan of that in the Encyclopedia and in the interviews and fan interactions.
It could have been so much more if they had a more a neutral opinion on risqué anime, but I just can't really take it when people assume sexual anime is only for men or the content automatically devalues the experience on an objective scale. The funny thing is, a lot of anime fan girls I know are the ones into sexual anime. Not just with hunky male characters but sexual female characters as well. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
BassKuroi
|
|
|||||||||||||||
It's not just risqué anime, their article on Evangelion (guess why that pisses me off) is absolutely anti-fanboy rant (meaning they had no objectivity whatsoever, they only exaggerate the bad things of the show). |
||||||||||||||||
Alan45
 Village Elder Posts: 9940 Location: Virginia |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
I have an earlier version of the Encyclopedia. I remember being somewhat irritated by their tendency to evaluate current shows as being similar to and not as good as an earlier show. Especially when the earlier show had never been legally available in the US. Even if shows are similar, very few actually exhaust the genre.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Jose Cruz
 Posts: 1792 Location: South America |
|
|||||||||||||||
Indeed. I would like that journal articles these days had more entertaining language. Journal articles of my field in the past (i.e. half a century ago) were so pleasurable to read and easier to understand. These days they are impenetrable dense exercises in self "masturbation". 
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Jose Cruz
Posts: 1792 Location: South America |
|
|||||||||||||||
Objectivity applies to art when one does judge the impact of a work on the overall medium and other artists. Evangelion, for instance, would benefit from having a more objective treatment because it has been enormously important for the medium as a whole and in Japan is widely regarded as a masterpiece and for a good reason. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Snomaster1
Subscriber Posts: 2878 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
So,"The Anime Encyclopedia" has a third edition. Good. It's a great anime resource but it'll also help fiction writers get some ideas for novels or stories. I've read it. Trust me. It's good.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
CoreSignal
 Posts: 727 Location: California, USA |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
While I haven't read this third edition yet, I have read the second edition and after reading Rebecca's review, it sounds like many of problems that plagued the previous editions are still there. As the review mentioned, the tone of writing is very inconsistent. Entries for some shows or terms will have a formal "academic" tone while entries for other shows or terms will have a sarcastic or mocking tone. Personally, I think the variable writing style is a little jarring for the reader. Also, plot summaries and production history of some shows occasionally will have wrong or missing information. It's too bad, since I do have respect for the academic work of the authors, and it's the only print anime encyclopedia around. Anyway, I may still try to pick up this edition once the price goes down. It's still good as a reference book.
@GWOtaku, it's tricky, because there's a fine line between an analysis and a review. I think the authors try to do both, but sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's pretty clear from some of the entries when the authors really like a certain show or they really hate it.
Completely agree. I don't know if they've revised the Evangelion entry in this third edition, but the Eva entry in the second edition sorta has a condescending tone to it. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
doc-watson42
Encyclopedia Editor
Posts: 1709 |
|
|||||||||||||||
As noted in the statistics above, we did a lot of clean up, and corrections are always welcomed. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Cptn_Taylor
Posts: 925 |
|
|||||||||||||||
What you're looking for doesn't exist unless your idea of a encyclopedia is : just a list of items with no context at all. With context come the opinions. That's the way it is. Even in old fashioned print encyclopedias with tens of volumes, tens of thousands of articles, the articles are to a certain extent "biased". And get it straight, an encylopedia is not the word of God. It doesn't give you the ultimate truth. It gives you a view on certain topics. Consider it as a starting point for further research not the end point of a truth quest. As for errors, big whoop. No reference book exists without errors. They crop in no matter how well the proofreading phase goes. The point is to keep them to a minimum.
And what if it does ? You think everyone is a fan of Eva just because ? The facts need to be correct. The ideas of the authors remain the opinions of the authors. In nothing does it impede the ability to arrive at a different conclusion. [Edit]: removed unnecessary jab and unnecessary quote nesting. Please read the quoting guidelines. Errinundra. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
BassKuroi
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
^
It would be as bad to sing unfounded praises to Evangelion as to rant how much it sucks, that's why I said anti-fanboy rant. They weren't thinking when they wrote that libel, in fact, I think they were wasted with cheap wine and just in their underwear. [Edit]: removed unnecessary quotes and uncalled for snark directed at the earlier poster. Errinundra. |
||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group