[002]
69.172.221.8
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Um... *scratches head* I see that on the main page Bara is described as being a genre which began in and still continues to be published in Japan. While knowing the origin is important, isn\'t it a bit limiting to say that something must be published in Japan or be published by a Japanese writer/artist for it to be considered Bara, even if it otherwise use the same style, character appearance, and tropes? Specifically, it seems wrong to me to cut out those artists Lebrel singled out as \
to:
Um... *scratches head* I see that on the main page Bara is described as being a genre which began in and still continues to be published in Japan. While knowing the origin is important, isn\\\'t it a bit limiting to say that something must be published in Japan or be published by a Japanese writer/artist for it to be considered Bara, even if it otherwise uses the same style, character appearance, and tropes? Specifically, it seems wrong to me to cut out those artists Lebrel singled out as \\\"not being Asian\\\"--I wasn\\\'t aware one had to live in a particular country or have a particular nationality to have one\\\'s work be considered part of a particular genre. A lot of High Fantasy is based off of medieval European values and tropes, but we don\\\'t say modern writers from non-European countries who use the same values and tropes in their stories aren\\\'t writing High Fantasy. And the artists listed above (from Braford onward) most certainly do use the style, character appearance, and tropes of Bara, \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' self-identify as Bara artists. So unless you\\\'re going to tell them they\\\'re wrong just because they aren\\\'t Asian...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
*scratches head* I see that on the main page Bara is described as being a genre which began in and still continues to be published in Japan. While knowing the origin is important, isn\'t it a bit limiting to say that something must be published in Japan or be published by a Japanese writer/artist for it to be considered Bara, even if it otherwise use the same style, character appearance, and tropes? Specifically, it seems wrong to me to cut out those artists Lebrel singled out as \
to:
Um... *scratches head* I see that on the main page Bara is described as being a genre which began in and still continues to be published in Japan. While knowing the origin is important, isn\\\'t it a bit limiting to say that something must be published in Japan or be published by a Japanese writer/artist for it to be considered Bara, even if it otherwise use the same style, character appearance, and tropes? Specifically, it seems wrong to me to cut out those artists Lebrel singled out as \\\"not being Asian\\\"--I wasn\\\'t aware one had to live in a particular country or have a particular nationality to have one\\\'s work be considered part of a particular genre. A lot of High Fantasy is based off of medieval European values and tropes, but we don\\\'t say modern writers from non-European countries who use the same values and tropes in their stories aren\\\'t writing High Fantasy. And the artists listed above (from Braford onward) most certainly do use the style, character appearance, and tropes of Bara, \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' self-identify as Bara artists. So unless you\\\'re going to tell them they\\\'re wrong just because they aren\\\'t Asian...
