Interpreting a Javanese art form

Ward Keeler's introduction to Javanese Shadow Plays, seemed scattered and unsuccient. The first six pages seemed to drift back and forth from the visualizations of the play, and the backstory behind each character. Despite the lack of specific focus, I could visualize the plays with each proceeding sentence. I got a sense of how elobrate and massive the production is with all characters involved in music and dance, while retracting back to a storyline with a moral and purpose. Wayang seems to parallel musicals here in the United States and Europe; the act of entertainment and storytelling are both components found in Javanese plays and Western musicals. As described in Keeler's passage, it is important to remain remotely impartial to the analyzation of the shadow plays. Natives analyists become distracted by their own viceral, nationalistic ties to the art form, while Westerners lack a certain appreciation and understanding of the culture.
What differentiates our national art forms from the Javanese shadow plays is the velocity of modernization. Living in a western world, I understand how contemperary almost everything is--clothes, music, styles, etc. It is refreshing to read a detailed passage of a world that maintains some tradition in their native distinctions. Many of my reactions to this reading were evoked by the similarities between a recent time and old tradition. Having lived in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, I saw the contrast and dynamic of the traditional dance taking place in the streets lined with Hummers, Mercedes' and terracotta roofed homes. Similar to Keeler, it is essential to live in a given place in order to adopt the most appropriate and proper opinions upon culture. That is why his scrabbled introduction, and commentary throughout seem factual, accurate and definitive to introducing this art form into my brain of knowledge.