Aria is a syntagm but also a sign in itself, thus it has many signifieds, or paradigms; its signifier would be, confusingly, the symbol “Aria”, the word, at the most macroscopic level. Digging deeper we can easily conclude that one of these signifieds is women, so divorcing the constituent parts of the sign would be a great fallacy in attempting to analyze it. However, “disregarding” one signified within the syntagm doesn’t mean Aria as a sign is completely rejected as entirely “problematic” – and that’s why I’m wondering if even bothering to think of Aria as inherently sexual is of any purpose. In essence, Serious Business – and on the other hand, is neglecting to investigate gender issues doing a disservice to women (not that a lot of you would care…)? What am I supposed to do? Damned if I do, damned if I don’t – analysis or lack thereof will either be labled as SRS BSNS or patriarchal supremacy. Pick your poison. As for me, I’ll take anti SRS BSNS.

I didn’t pick up anything “wrong” from LK’s essay – nor, in agreement with you, think that yuri is inherently a bad thing.

LK: Thank god I don’t write fan fiction (it’d be the most boring shit anyway!)

Going back to my comment in response to Omo’s, there are two aniblogosphere schools of thought concerning meaning: (1) mine, and (2) everyone else’s à la “death of the animator”. Neither are wrong nor write, and deciding which model to analyze with depends on the context – in Erica’s case, a political(?) context. And, again, in her case, I think “yuri” was superfluously attached to Aria – I’d agree that Aria isn’t yuri, but as I said before, “yuri” is different from much broader and older issues on sexuality.

Aria is a syntagm but also a sign in itself, thus it has many signifieds, or paradigms; its signifier would be, confusingly, the symbol “Aria”, the word, at the most macroscopic level. Digging deeper we can easily conclude that one of these signifieds is women, so divorcing the constituent parts of the sign would be a great fallacy in attempting to analyze it. However, “disregarding” one signified within the syntagm doesn’t mean Aria as a sign is completely rejected as entirely “problematic” – and that’s why I’m wondering if even bothering to think of Aria as inherently sexual is of any purpose. In essence, Serious Business – and on the other hand, is neglecting to investigate gender issues doing a disservice to women (not that a lot of you would care…)? What am I supposed to do? Damned if I do, damned if I don’t – analysis or lack thereof will either be labled as SRS BSNS or patriarchal supremacy. Pick your poison. As for me, I’ll take anti SRS BSNS.

I didn’t pick up anything “wrong” from LK’s essay – nor, in agreement with you, think that yuri is inherently a bad thing.

LK: Thank god I don’t write fan fiction (it’d be the most boring shit anyway!)

Going back to my comment in response to Omo’s, there are two aniblogosphere schools of thought concerning meaning: (1) mine, and (2) everyone else’s à la “death of the animator”. Neither are wrong nor write, and deciding which model to analyze with depends on the context – in Erica’s case, a political(?) context. And, again, in her case, I think “yuri” was superfluously attached to Aria – I’d agree that Aria isn’t yuri, but as I said before, “yuri” is different from much broader and older issues on sexuality.

The thought simply never occurred to me in watching the show.

I think that discussing “possible” yuri (or other) couplings (period—this really isn’t supposed to be about what sexuality is involved) in an anime rarely has anything to do with “hey, things might be like this—possibilities are possibilities” and more often something to do with “hurrr, how cool would it be if… giggle giggle.” If it’s giggle-worthy, it’s kinda dumb. Now, this is based on my experience with fandom and people who write fanfiction or ship couples or whatever the hell it is they do.

I suppose there might be ways of finding subtext that differ from what I’m used to; I just haven’t seen those ways practiced. The post of Erica’s which sparked my post certainly struck me as someone trying to find something for the sake of finding something, for kicks as it were. Perhaps that impression is incorrect.

Whether it is or not, I think my post was fine for what it was: a response to something that was bugging me in which I attempted to describe how different Aria was for me from almost every other anime I’ve seen, and how it changed me.

See, as far as I’m concerned there’s nothing wrong with yuri subtext in Aria. I just don’t see it and can’t understand how others can.

The thought simply never occurred to me in watching the show.

I think that discussing “possible” yuri (or other) couplings (period—this really isn’t supposed to be about what sexuality is involved) in an anime rarely has anything to do with “hey, things might be like this—possibilities are possibilities” and more often something to do with “hurrr, how cool would it be if… giggle giggle.” If it’s giggle-worthy, it’s kinda dumb. Now, this is based on my experience with fandom and people who write fanfiction or ship couples or whatever the hell it is they do.

I suppose there might be ways of finding subtext that differ from what I’m used to; I just haven’t seen those ways practiced. The post of Erica’s which sparked my post certainly struck me as someone trying to find something for the sake of finding something, for kicks as it were. Perhaps that impression is incorrect.

Whether it is or not, I think my post was fine for what it was: a response to something that was bugging me in which I attempted to describe how different Aria was for me from almost every other anime I’ve seen, and how it changed me.

See, as far as I’m concerned there’s nothing wrong with yuri subtext in Aria. I just don’t see it and can’t understand how others can.

I think the emphasis on sexuality is curious. It’s not the only force that compels people to act, so it seems curious that it has such prominence in your discussion. “Aria can’t be anything but constitutive of sexuality”? Well, it could be a way for Kozue Amano to take her trips to Venice off her taxes as a business expense. It could be a sly move on the Venice tourist board to capitalize on Japan’s Gross National Cool.

I suppose I agree a bit with Omo. Aria is about life in Venice. We tour a glass-blowing factory in one episode, the back-alleys of the town in another, and we learn a great deal about the traditions and stories of the real Venice, we attend Carnivale and know where the Bridge of Sighs got its name. Yes, it is told through the company of attractive young women. Yes, life in Venice involves romance, and we see a bit of that among the tourists and residents alike. There’s also gondola-rowing, glass-blowing, and bread-making, spring tides and Alicia’s marriage to Granny. And we see a bit of all of those, but none of them take center stage for very long.

I think Lolikit makes a mistake in his essay in thinking that there’s something wrong or illicit with a yuri sub-text in Aria, that it would be there for titillation, as opposed to being there because it’s a part of life (there are so many women prominent in the cast that it would be a little odd if none of them were lesbian). But it’s not illicit that Akatsuki seems infatuated with Akari, nor Al with Aika. It shouldn’t seem odd or surprising to think of Alicia and Akira as former sweethearts, either. Or not. In a way, it’s just one of many aspects of life in (Neo-)Venice.

I think the emphasis on sexuality is curious. It’s not the only force that compels people to act, so it seems curious that it has such prominence in your discussion. “Aria can’t be anything but constitutive of sexuality”? Well, it could be a way for Kozue Amano to take her trips to Venice off her taxes as a business expense. It could be a sly move on the Venice tourist board to capitalize on Japan’s Gross National Cool.

I suppose I agree a bit with Omo. Aria is about life in Venice. We tour a glass-blowing factory in one episode, the back-alleys of the town in another, and we learn a great deal about the traditions and stories of the real Venice, we attend Carnivale and know where the Bridge of Sighs got its name. Yes, it is told through the company of attractive young women. Yes, life in Venice involves romance, and we see a bit of that among the tourists and residents alike. There’s also gondola-rowing, glass-blowing, and bread-making, spring tides and Alicia’s marriage to Granny. And we see a bit of all of those, but none of them take center stage for very long.

I think Lolikit makes a mistake in his essay in thinking that there’s something wrong or illicit with a yuri sub-text in Aria, that it would be there for titillation, as opposed to being there because it’s a part of life (there are so many women prominent in the cast that it would be a little odd if none of them were lesbian). But it’s not illicit that Akatsuki seems infatuated with Akari, nor Al with Aika. It shouldn’t seem odd or surprising to think of Alicia and Akira as former sweethearts, either. Or not. In a way, it’s just one of many aspects of life in (Neo-)Venice.