Working the results for the brackets in round 2 of the Anison Tourney, here are some immediate observations:

There are a total of three upsets half way through (which is 2 out of 32 matches). It feels rather low, for any kind of tournament. I’m more used to the 25% range. By upset I just mean versus seeding. Furthermore, none of these upsets are between similarly seeded entries–the inverse might sound much more unusual–songs that seeded one place better consistently beat their opponents (which happened…once?), and songs within 10 places of each other always put down their opponents (which happened a couple more times). The initial explanation I came up with the low percentage was that round one acted like a filter to eliminate any high(er) ranked songs that probably shouldn’t be, and proping songs that slipped through the nomination process. The other likely (and major) factor was that the voter pool might be relatively the same as the nomination ballet pool. Given all round 2 polls come in at < 150 votes, that is probably true.

There’s no real way to guess who will vote on the games initially, but the nomination system might be too precise, “too good” in a way, that makes doing a bracket less meaningful. With so many entrants, the only meaningful way to play is to come up with some model and plug the various songs in. So the safe bet this time happens to be the only realistic bet at winning, which is all-in based on the seeding. And when the seeding is way too close to the voter base, it is…no fun.

Here are the upsets:

• (223) Hybrid Rainbow over (95) Euforia (BBR2P4 or FH)
• (190) Katayoku no Tori over (62) Light Before We Land (BCR2P2 or FV)

I would even further suggest that Hybrid Rainbow’s upset is predictable because of its prior performance.

This leads to the last point. I think the tourney should post seeding on the matches. This helps people who have no game, to have a metagame, so to speak, as we shave down the number of songs and invariably people’s favorites will lose, leaving them disinterested. And then we can collectively scratch our heads as to why which song is seeded higher or lower is beating whichever song that is better or worse. It adds some unpredictability, basically.

For the prize pile, I have a couple boxes behind my desk of things I probably should give away, so it’ll be from there that I draw some music-related things. I hope Shut Up And Explode go far, LOL.

Sorry Sixten.

If Champagne is just the French word for sparkling wine, then maybe you have a point.

I think it doesn’t really matter what is called what as long as it’s consistent and meaningful. What is manga? Is it so hard to see that it could mean both “comics from Japan” as well as “comics drawn in style commonly found in Japanese comics”? Could it be defined as something else, too? I guess so. Why get bent over by the definition? 漫画 in Japan get called “comics” all the time, so are they no longer manga? I don’t see Adam Warren going nuts just because he draws his comics a certain way sometimes. I mean, seriously, unless you are a marketer why does anyone even bother? Bored nerd thing to do, I guess?

To cut to the chase, the ultimate problem (or the horse I have in this race) is one of marketing. Because I buy stuff like this, and marketing directly interacts with my consumption. Lately it’s also because I increasingly have to swim through PR junk from publishing companies (and in some ways thankful that Tokyopop is no longer doing this nonsense). It’s okay to call your artwork manga or manga-styled or whatever, as long as people understand what you are trying to say. But it’s perfectly okay if you don’t, and just say it’s comics from some dude, because that’s what it is (unless this is untrue, I don’t know, maybe it’s not comics or not from some dude).

Do you ever recognize how the same words can mean different things in different languages, let alone different contexts?

It seems that by calling any comics “manga” you are indeed applying what certain French people do with their alcohol. So, why do you do it? Why commit this internal inconsistency in your argument? Why do the same things you implied as “not a good thing”? What is your horse in this race? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say ZUN is one of your influences? Tezuka maybe lol? If “anime” or “manga” is your influence, are you actually serious enough about your influences to at least identify the people and the distinctive contributions they bring to the “genre”? To cut through the skin-deep level of analysis and marketing bullcrap that makes up the bulk of the things we see following this scene?

Because the Japanese government certainly has at least one horse in this race. It uses MANGA in all caps for a reason, when you go look at the page linked there, which is AFAIK an affiliate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Yay politics! At least I know when the French government wants to protect the term, they are just interested to protect a brand and their local businesses. They care about $. We understand this clearly. Japan OTOH is up to their usual soft power nonsense, which, in some ways, is much worse. It’s straight-up government propaganda, one that I hope everyone realizes? (And in this case it’s okay to do so–it’s just a pretty sad thing to do so without knowing it. Because nobody really cares that much about what manga is defined as, unless you are a marketer or is affected by it. And Japan is home to far majority of marketers of manga, it makes sense for that island country government to take care of that business.)

And let’s use Dan Kim’s book for example. I am a backer, and the book is a free download for anyone interested. Would I call it manga? No. I think it’s sufficiently format- and genre-blending that it’s just what it is. Most people would probably have their expectations betrayed if they went in only knowing it’s a manga (and not knowing about such twisted nightmares from Kim’s usual magical hole of an imagination). Sure, Kim can surely call it manga, because people would know what he is talking about in the context of Dam Kim saying his work is a manga. But would some guy reading what Omo has to say know the difference? I’m not so sure.

Call it what it is. Manga. Comics. Cartoons. Anime. Webcomic. Butts. Whatever. I guess unlike cartoons, comics today don’t carry precisely that “for kids only” connotation that our western animation still kind of has. Which is okay, as long as we recognize that and communicate clearly.

We see and know the horror of OEL marketing piggybacking on the weeaboo wave. Just talk to its perpetrators. I don’t think anyone prefers that sort of an experience over one where people are judged by the merits of their works, not some gimmick word like “manga.” [And for that matter “gamer” or “geek” or “nerd” or “otaku” or “cosplayer” or “visual novel” or insert your favorite label.] Or that by perpetrating this stylistic illusion, be able to sell a few more books or get some more eyeballs. That’s what’s unfortunate about this situation, about going to these commercial and government entities to look for meaning on what defines your work. There are no authority who is able to sort things out.

So, tl;dr:

• Please don’t go on and say your work is a manga and cite the Japanese Government >_>
• Your definition is just one definition in the sea of unsettled definitions. Or mine for that matter. What is my definition? I don’t think I even know.
• Please respect the fact that in Japan people use Japanese and at times words mean different things than our imported context and are applied differently. To an extent, this applies to Japanese companies operating in English as well.

PS. But you know, is pixiv really interested in this debate? Or do they just want a user-friendly interface that encourages more submissions=more pageviews=more users=more $=etc? You tell me.