Is style substance?

>leads to postmodern tier "interpretations" where no one knows what's going on and everyone is just interpreting the work as they wish.
what's wrong with that?

I like stories that look simple on the surface, but have a lot of depth. It takes a lot of skill to take something extremely complex and then give it an easy to understand example.

>substance implies (...)
no it doesn't
>no one knows what's going on and everyone is just interpreting the work as they wish.
The 1900's called, they want their modernist orthodoxy approach to analysing fiction back

Attached: 3464964_1391985576633.58res_450_300.jpg (450x300, 13.65K)

blamebros...how do we protect our daughters from Isayama?

Attached: 1657823757757.png (564x609, 184.89K)

if done right

The 40 year old blametards is actually seething their idol drew moeshit. hahahahaha

it's all Isayama's fault

Attack on titan is already done.

No, what he's saying answers op's question. He's saying that even if you look down on a story as being unsubstantive, it's really not the content of the story it's the storytelling that captivates the audience.

Where?

No, and saying otherwise is cope that often comes from fans of void shows that look good such as Redline and Akira.

Your thinking is flawed, humans can be and are emotive without properly understanding why. Obviously you believe when someone says artwork is sad or lonely, or that it instills some emotion in them, that feeling is real, right? You're suggesting that because something doesn't talk to you you can't understand it but that's just not true, we empathize with images on a deeper level than words - that's why competent imagery compliments a competent narrative so well. I'm not suggesting a narrative is meaningless, exactly the opposite - that it is a tool to create just like anything else. Getting hung up on interpretations is past the point because before you interpret what something means you've already felt it. That's why your idea that catharsis, depth, other things which you may be convinced provide substance, that they're strictly bound to something concrete and must be spelled out is ridiculous simply on the basis that they're all things that are felt before we properly understand them ourselves. Your view on communication is too limited, and the fact that you think both a narrative must be established in some way, and that a narrative is required to make you feel some way, are more products of you not having seen it done properly than steadfast rules of art.

Is substance style ?

A generic in style story can still be good if everything else is great. Example: 3-gatsu no Lion,

An unoriginal or simple story can also be great if the style and execution greatly enhances the theme and its emotional impact. Example: Kill la Kill, Your Name

A masterpiece has its style and substance complement each other and build into one coherent body, effectively execute what meant to be conveyed through the style, the story, theme and characters all at once. Example: Evangelion, Madoka

The worst of all is a bland as fuck story, with good visual but run of the mill in term of style. Example: VEG, Koe no Katachi