What makes a shrine a shrine?

[Varen]

@Jo

That's very true; I hadn't thought of that. Another that crossed my mind is how difficult it is to express yourself without using some form of words. I mean, granted, you can reconstruct an essay to be like a comic, but you'll still probably use some analytical functions and exposition to explain your interpretation.

[dubiousdisc]

Varen: Well, most comics are found in the intersection between the language of pictures and the language of words and that a lot of modern illustration uses words, both because of their meaning and because of their aesthetic appeal, so it's not like working with visual media completely excludes working with words.

Joe: Though that is a very good point re: fan works being usually adding parts that don't exist in canon and so on. They do fall under fansite, but I would guess not under shrine, huh. Although the borders can be blurred. For example, let's say we're talking about a game which has a description of some event that is never shown beyond that description, and you have an illustrated shrine to that...

[anon]

Tabitha made that Kokuyo shrine in the past that was completely illustrated. Even if it had images drawn by her I'd think it's a shrine and not a fanart site because she isn't displaying her works like a gallery.

[dubiousdisc]

Though, let's say instead of a manga a shrine of that type had been for a book?

[anon]

If it's just a bunch of illlustrations to interpret events in a book I think that's more of a fanart site.

[Mikari]

@Joe: I mean my interest in text/information shrines isn't all that high anymore and I like/miss the fanart/fanfic sites that are not so common anymore. I mostly visit sites for series I'm already a fan of, thus I already have basic knowledge about it and the info, however well written, might feel repetitive. Was that the question? Now I'm confused. ^^;;

@All: There are also sites that focus on a character with for example, extensive fanfics/manga to "continue" the character's story or fill in past gaps. They focus on stories/possibilities presenting analysis in a "show" (visually or with story scenes) rather than "tell" (articles) way. The analysis is there, but presented through a plot or images rather than in a straightforward interpretation. Thoughts?

Personally, I find such dedications to be more challenging as there is more creativity involved in how to show certain aspects where are simply stating it is more straight forward. I also find them to be much more entertaining, although they are quite rare to come by.

[dubiousdisc]

Adding more to this discussion: what would you call a site devoted to something like an animal, a planet, a place?

[anon]

An informational site. Unless it really exhibits any sort of fanaticism I'd just consider it informational.

Frankly all it boils down to now is that whatever this fanaticism is defined according to your ideas makes it a shrine. Abstract concept.

[Eden]

An informational site. Unless it really exhibits any sort of fanaticism I'd just consider it informational.

Frankly all it boils down to now is that whatever this fanaticism is defined according to your ideas makes it a shrine. Abstract concept.

I have to agree with this. A site dedicated to an animal, a planet, historical figure, etc outside of fiction is more informational than it is a shrine. I just can't see these things as a shrine. Maybe it's just me.

[dragoneyes]

I have to agree with this. A site dedicated to an animal, a planet, historical figure, etc outside of fiction is more informational than it is a shrine. I just can't see these things as a shrine. Maybe it's just me.

I agree, though I think that shrines about historical figures are actually more possible to make: it's not unlikely for different people to have different opinions about them and unless the author is keeping the information objective on purpose, their opinion is bound to filter in their writing.