ANÁLISIS DE LA JUSTIFICACIÓN DE LA CREACIÓN Y DEL DISEÑO DEL PROGRAMA

Negative evaluations of keitai are broadly derived from two diff erent, yet intertwined, ideologies: literacy and the literary. What I mean by “inter- twined” is that works of literature have been used in language education for the ruling class in Japan for over a thousand years (Shirane, 2000b). Even after the Pacifi c War, when education was available to everyone, there was still an emphasis on literary works in the school curriculum, though the selection of canonical works changed periodically, depending on the curriculum developers’ decisions that accommodated political, social, and cultural situations (Shirane, 2009). This tradition continues to this day. Keitai novel critics who draw attention to “immature language with easy kanji ” and “deviation from standard prose writing style” epitomize litera- cy ideologies, and the comments about “banal themes” and “rough story lines without detailed descriptions” are more related to literary standards. Harsh comments toward keitai novels from critics and established writers are based on traditional notions of “good” writing. To examine this assessment, it is worth considering what contemporary “experts” have to

Table 5.8 Average readability of keitai and conventional novels

School grade level Keitai novels Conventional novels

Overall 7.71 8.2

Narrations 7.71 8.7

say on the matter. Iwabuchi (1989, p. 50), for example, is a well-known lin- guist and lexicographer, and one-time director of the National Institute of Japanese Language and Linguistics. He argues that too many line changes (which he equates with nonexistent paragraph organization) is a key fea- ture of bad writing. More recently, Honda (2004, p. 206), a journalist and author of writing guides, has also expressed his displeasure with sentences that end with unpredicated nouns. Specifi cally, he mentions that fi rst- class writers do not like such sentences, implying that they are the product of poor writing. Finally, Ishiguro (2004), a writing teacher and author of composition manuals for both native and nonnative Japanese students, warns writers to be always conscious of the diff erences between spoken and written language and to avoid spoken features in writing. In fact, a noticeable gap between spoken and written language is often considered by linguists to be a distinctive characteristic of the Japanese language (e.g., Neustupny, 1981, p. 231). These remarks certainly provide solid support for popular criticisms of keitai novels. The language used in keitai novels has features that these experts regard as bad for writing: keitai language is evidently colloquial with frequent line changes, and many fragments end with nouns without predicates. Moreover, the use of easier kanji , which is perceived to be greater than it actually is, contributes to the “amateurish” image of these new media novels.

Why, then, do keitai novelists write in a language and style that is deemed poor? To start, keitai novelists prefer a generally more conversa- tional style of writing, even in narrations. Clancy (1982) observes a tenden- cy in written Japanese to eff ace interactional features such as sentence- fi nal particles due to social remoteness. Writers and readers generally do not know one another. In contrast, in the production and consumption of keitai novels, this assumption of social remoteness may not hold. As seen in interviews, keitai novelists are often quite close to readers, who, in turn, act as peers and interact closely with writers. Perhaps the con- versational style of keitai novels is a product of these close writer/reader relationships, or perhaps it is deployed as a resource to create these kinds of relationships.

Concerning their “bad” elements of style, recall also how keitai novels are created and circulated. These novels reach readers directly (via web- sites) without interference from intermediaries such as literary agents and publishing houses. They are posted and downloaded quickly and freely. Conventional novels published in print go through lengthy editing pro- cesses before reaching the readers/consumers. Hanai (2005) described

her struggle with editors when she attempted to publish her novels in unconventional prose styles for teenagers. In a sense, amateur writers’ works appear online without being “corrected” by a third party. They not only speak directly to readers but also directly express the author’s ideas.

There is another fairly obvious technical factor (or aff ordance) that helps explain the particular style of keitai novels. In order to fi t on the tiny keitai screens, long sentences, which would require scrolling, are altered in favor of short sentences and strings. The opening page of Koizora in Figure 5.2 illustrates that the 18-character string more or less fi ts the keitai display.

Frequent line changes, also observable in Figure 5.2, are similarly a result of adapting to small keitai displays, and making content more accessible. This also may be one reason why complex kanji are avoided. In short, language choice in keitai novels is intentionally based on user needs and technical limitations. Expression is both expanded and constrained by keitai technology.

I want now to consider briefl y some of the literary ideologies that compound the public literacy critique of keitai . Shirane (2000a, p. 2), drawing on Guillory (1993), writes: “canon … means those texts that are recognized by established or powerful institutions.” In his exploration of how the Japanese literary canon was formed, Shirane clarifi es that since the 8th century, works of Japanese and Chinese literature, along with religious and historical writings, have appeared and disappeared in the canon, depending on political and social factors. Not only individual liter- ary works, but also literary genres such as poetry and novels, have been granted or denied canonical status. After the Meiji Restoration, Japan attempted to catch up with Western nations, and this had an impact on the Japanese literary canon. The genre of fi ction, which had a lower status, was raised up to canonical literature. This tendency was reinforced after the Pacifi c War. Shirane states, “The most striking aspect of the postwar kokugo [ national language, no italics in original] curriculum, however, was the dominance of modern, often European-based notions of literature, particularly the shôsetsu (novel), in shaping the canon” (Shirane, 2000b, p. 248). It is not surprising that established literary circles value novels as a canonical genre today and might feel as if the “important” territory they have cherished has been invaded by keitai authors, who are thought to have had no training or experience in literature. The antagonism might be fueled by the astonishing sales of print versions of keitai novels. If keitai novels appeared only online, and no printed versions were sold, the harsh

comments might not have been voiced. People in established circles might not have felt threatened by digital literature. Yet both Shirane (2009) and Ensslin (2006) point out that canons are changeable over the course of gradual paradigm shifts or in favor of political, social, or cultural upheaval. Especially in the contemporary emergence of competing canons, in the face of rising popular culture that has been marginalized, we may some- day see digital literature canonized.