And you increase your retarded level by 3.
This is actually a reaction post after reading Deftoned’s discussion about how ANN hates Nanoha (and the always excellent Jpmeyer as usual writes a LOL! entry about the incident). I do not profess to be able to write anything as great as these two writers, but I have a discussion with my girlfriend after looking at some of the rather sarcastic forum exchanges between the ANN editorial team and the Moe loving fans. In particular, one thing interesting that came from these forum exchanges is the high ground that the ANN editorial team gave, that they are critics and are attacked by moe-loving dumb fans.
When I really think about it, what makes them an anime critic? Are there specific criteria for someone to be an anime critic or at least call themselves as such? I do not think that anyone who describes and reviews on an anime should be called a critic. It’s just a yapper talking about something related to anime. Yet, as much as I do not agree with ANN’s reviewers most of the time, I personally find myself conferring them a professional position on anime opinions (Aka, they are professional anime reviewers, albeit rather elitist).
So, what is an anime critic? I do not clearly know, but there are some things that are not how anime critics should portray themselves. If you hate to listen to high horse rhetoric, you can stop now.
I am right, and you better listen
I personally believe that an anime critic got to be humble. There is often this sad phenomena where anime critics became anime assholes because they find themselves way too good to watch what the “commoners” would ever watch. You will sometimes catch me doing this when I diss fanservice or mecha, but I have learned to curb my snobbish attitude. At least it will never be done to discourage anyone from enjoying what they like. Our mouths have become so gaping wide that we no longer know when to close the mouth.
In fact, you probably see this disdaining group of people in ANN, in blogs and in almost everywhere on the Internet. They tell you that what you are watching is horrible, and the only good anime are anime that THEY watch. If that is where they stop, it is all good but they will convince you that you should be them. They also often use grandiloquent and pompous language to confuse and make fun of others. Might I ask who ever made you the authority in deciphering anime or deciding what is good for others? That becomes very sad when we become the center of the review, rather than the anime that we are reviewing.
Yes-man/fanboys
A cosplay of Danny? What’s next, a cosplay of Crusader the gundam hater? Bah.
I am definitely not advocating that we should all be extremely agreeable and not say anything bad about anime. I am not asking you to compromise your own position and try to be nice all the time even if it’s very hard to say something nice about something. That is also a problem because we became merely fans that are worshiping the anime without thinking. If an anime critic merely agrees and says that every anime he watches is good, then we will never know if an anime is really good. Why is it good? Are there issues that should be worrying the viewer (and every single anime has that, no anime is perfect).
***holes
I believe strongly that anime critics should critique in a fair manner, write on genres that they have some interest and knowledge in, and tries to be strict without being condescending to any target readers. If you cannot resist saying something bad about a really bad anime, don’t say anything. The spiral of silence is always the most powerful weapon that we reviewers possess. I think that the likelihood of finding someone who actually enjoys an anime, critically analyzes the anime and yet stays relevant to the readers is almost zero.
My ears are closed
Do you ever read an entry of a person who sounds like that any feedback or objection toward the person’s review or view will cause a vicious reply from that said author? It is like how many Naruto fans, being overly zealous of their anime, tends to attack anyone who will say anything dismissive of genuinely poor production values. No matter what a reader says, this writer just goes ahead and make fun of you without even listening.
The worst type of critic is one that does not listen to what his critics have to say about his views. It is always said that any person who professes to be an expert or leader is also a person who is most willing to listen to other views, and answer them with grace and decency. If you are a critic that only bothers to attack and not listen, why even call yourself a critic? You are only an empty shell that is trying to embarrass yourself, and disgrace the art form that you are supposed to celebrate.
So what makes you an anime critic?
So what makes an anime critic after listening to such negative examples? I believe that it is an idealistic wo/man that likes his or her anime, yet never losing sight of the fact that he or she has to be objective in the discussion of the anime. S/he should never try to think that s/he is the center of the review, but only as a facilitator to communicate the goodness and problems of the anime to the reader. S/he listens to feedback, discusses intensively with readers with a personal feel and a professional touch.
Is this even possible? Is there an ideal anime critic?
33 Comments
I like trolls, they make you think. If everyone was always lovey-dovey, rabu-rabu, there would be a lot less critical thinking. Conflict produces change. Harmonious stagnancy also produces very insightful discourse, but IMO the currents of argument are the most productive. A ‘rational’ criticism of ‘irrational’ criticism falls into this, and it’s this kind of conflict I enjoy a lot, seeing values being challenged, struggle eventually resolving.
What is an anime critic? I dunno. Idealism, I dunno, it’s relative…
Critics exists to help other people find what they want to watch. There is no good criticism or bad one, only one that fits the reader’s own needs and judgment.
I don’t think there is a need to restrain a reviewer on expressing his likes and dislikes, nor do they need to be fair, objective or any of that. (since viewers are no more reasonable) The reviewer just need to remember that YMMV principle and other people’s opinions can be different and valid at the same time. Always remember, “quality” is a opinion and not a fact. Opinions are often shared, but that does not make them more factual than otherwise.
That is also a problem because we became merely fans that are worshiping the anime without thinking. If an anime critic merely agrees and says that every anime he watches is good, then we will never know if an anime is really good. Why is it good?
I don’t think it is necessary at all, unless you are into the business of producing anime. If you know a reviewer have the same tastes as you do, there is no need to ask for excessive analysis that usually does not touch on the core elements of what makes a anime good anyways. The details that a reviewer throws out exists mainly to tell the reader what kind of anime viewer he is. It is as much self introduction as the anime itself.
———–
If you ask me, it would be great if one could apply something like the netflix algorithm on myanimelist or something like that, and we can forget reading blogs of reviews altogether. (except for pure entertainment at laughing at how wrong they are)
ANN are normalfag trolls. Everything they do is to spread their own narrow perspective and troll anything diffrent. When I read that retarded review I lol’d and thought ‘this better be some epic trolling, or this guy is everything I hate about the world’.
There can never actaully be an ideal critic of anything because everyone has different opinions and there is no such thing as objectivity. Anyone who claims to be an ibjective critic is simply wrong. It’s pretty much all about the majority opinion, if 70% believe one thing and 30% believe another, then the 30% get shafted while the 70% can claim to be “better” and whatnot.
Anyone who’s condescending just create an image of themselves as close-minded retards who don’t really critique a show to give advice to others, but critique a show to rant and rave about what they like/don’t like about a show. ANN (simply as an example) will probably be admired and respected simply because they have that “professional” badge they can lord over anyone who claims to doubt their credentials and act like all mighty gods of the anime world. And we’ll listen because they have that oh-so-shiny badge. This is only for some reviewers though
While I don’t profess to be a critic, and my writing about shows tend to neither recommend or disapprove of the subject anime, I think there is a critical faculty in the rabu-rabu-ness.
Re, the image about fanboying: I’m a fan of fanboying, but I do assert that there’s an intelligence behind it.
Fanboying isn’t blind, it’s forgiving – well, at least my kind of fanboying is. I am open to seeing the flaws of the subject anime I love, it’s just that my love for that anime is not contingent to its perfection.
>>he spiral of silence is always the most powerful weapon that we reviewers possess.
Yes, I tend to not write about anime I don’t like. I question the value of any possible contribution I make if I wrote about something I don’t have a strong interest in, or knowledge of (key game adaptations).
IMO, the only intelligent columnist at ANN is that Answer Man dude. And I personally don’t like reading his stuff, because he’s generally a joyless mofo with a thinly-veiled hatred for his readers and the anime-viewing public at large. Which is why the I only read ANN for the news (i.e., the AN portion of ANN, and not the latter N).
When it comes to anime criticism, there’s some things that I really dislike. Like when a critic doesn’t put in the effort to watch even a full episode of something before launching into a reactionary diatribe, or makes sweeping statements concerning the nature of a show and/or it’s fan-base. On occasion, ANN is guilty of this, but I also remember your (Impz) really negative (passive aggressive) review of Casshern Sins, which left me with a thoroughly bad impression of you. For me, this all about how you set out to communicate your opinions. You can be provocative and hyperbolic, or laid back and compromising. Both sides have their positives, I just occasionally find myself wishing people would take a few more hours to consider those opinions before publishing.
I think what makes you a critic is critiquing anime titles in any sort of depth. Note that I didn’t say this necessarily makes you a GOOD critic.
I think the most important thing is to be able to both utilize your own taste in media, and also to be able to step outside of it. Like, to be able to say “this isn’t really the kind of show that I’m into, but I recognize that it’s pretty decent if you’re into this genre” or whatever. (But also, you need to be able to recognize when it’s NOT a pretty decent example of that genre, even if it’s not a genre you’re into– that’s the hard part.)
That said, I don’t really think of myself as an anime “critic” (although Anime.com once called me one O_o) because I tend to be pretty minimal on reviews. Mostly I’ll do my “first date,” covering just the first episode of new anime shows as they come out, and that’s about it. Those reviews consist largely of just talking about what the show’s about and it’s tone, more to convey a sense of what the show’s about overall than to try and declare it to be good or bad. That said, I do talk about the visual and audio quality of the show and whether I liked it, but it’s a relatively secondary part of a review.
Because I try to do first episodes for every show (and usually fail -_-;; but I try!), this means I’m often watching genres that I’m not as fond of or even familiar with, like moe romances. Maybe if I could hire additional reviewers like ANN I could pass those off to people who are more familiar with them, but since I can’t, I try very hard to be open-minded and to see the good things about any show, and to try and ignore the things I don’t like about the genre, and then to fully disclose my opinion so that people can make up their own minds about whether I’m being too biased or not.
This is a topic that’s pertinent to my interests.
I read ANN’s Nanoha review, and while I didn’t completely agree with it (Nanoha is above average, nothing more, nothing less, IMO), for the large part I could see where they were coming from. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with ANN’s approach to reviewing, of itself (with a few exceptions here and there) but they are pretty woeful at answering their own critics and looking at alternative viewpoints.
I’ve been writing anime reviews for a number of years now, and I’ve always tried to maintain at least some semblance of objectivity and a recognition of alternative viewpionts. Reviewing, I think, is one giant balancing act, since you need to be confident with your viewpoints but present them with enough humility that people who don’t necessarily agree with you can at least see where you’re coming from. That’s a real challenge.
But I do want to take you up on the “elitism” issue, since I think in moderate doses, a bit of elitism isn’t that bad a thing. I mean, when you review a title, you want to be effective in communicating your opinion. But I do think one needs to know their audience. Personally, I’m not really writing anime reviews for Narutard #2178, I’m writing reviews for anime fans who will appreciate ARIA, Monster and Natsume Yuujinchou. Which is why good reasoning is so important in reviews, IMO. When you are criticized, you want to at least have some common ground with who you’re debating with, or else the debate will inevitably go nowhere. Reasoning grounded in observation gives one’s opinion at least some amount of logic. The problem is that anime is art (to a certain extent), which mean that it’s less about observation and more about interpretation. That, in itself, tends to make for a huge sticking point in a number of debates about anime. You really have to be considered and confident with your own interpretation before you can write a good review, IMO.
I guess the problem with being condescending is that it makes your review less effective at communicating your opinion. But I don’t think a condescending attitude precludes a reviewer from possibly making a good point. So I guess a bit of elitism isn’t all that bad, as long as it’s kept in check and isn’t excessive and repulsive to your readers. Hell, I’d almost go as far as to say that the act of reviewing by itself is a somewhat elitist and narcissistic act. It’s kinda like saying “my opinion is important enough to publish on the internet”. That’s a serious business.
I never bother with reading ANN’s reviews or anything else there other than its news. I believe that you can get enough informal info from word of mouth but it still remains for you to make the decision if you want to watch the anime or not and after you watch it, to have your own subjective opinion of if you liked it or not. In a simpler way, “y so srs?”
This.
This too.
That being said, I’m way too biased/opinionated to even begin considering myself a critic or an expert on anime. I’m just an anime fan. And I’m fine with that.
As a long-suffering member of ANN’s (third-rate) forums, I can now, with some justification, come out and say it: these guys are a-holes for real! Not just the critics; all of the senior members of the sight are cocky, snobbish fakers who believe themselves to be some high and mighty angels descended upon earth to give the gift of “good-sense” to anime lovers. I mean, in every aspect, they’re the ones who push us junior members to watch this, and not watch that. That’s not all; I once had to bear the brunt of six senior ANN members rag on me for listening to, liking and defending in public my love for Ali Project’s music. It’s overkill, I tell you.
Hard to explain, but anyone who’s part of an internet community by now should understand it’s more sophisticated than anyone can write about in just a whole book, let alone an article. The internet is another world as far as I’m concerned, and while connected and inter-acting with the real one, has it’s own rules. And the ruler of the internet is Anarchy and Darwinism.
Really, a critic is simply someone who expresses their judgement on a work. So in that sense, we can all be “critics”. But what is more typically understood is that a Critic is a writer who routinely provides reasoned, critical judgements, and has them somehow published. Most of the time, the critic sees their role as providing an informed opinion to someone who is otherwise unfamiliar with the work. A strong secondary goal may be to engage in conversations with others equally familiar with the work, but the mechanism they use to start those conversations is to inform/opine/express (rather than ask/inquire).
So, if that’s what a critic is, the next question is: what makes a good critic? In a way, this is a trick question. I would suggest that a good critic is someone who commands the respect and appreciation of their audience; where people actually care about what the critic has to say. But the tricky part is this: who is their true target audience? One might think that the target audience should be the public at large, but, in my experience, that doesn’t often seem to be the case. Ultimately, it seems to me that the objective of most critics is to have their opinion valued/taken seriously by those they respect — usually other critics. A subset of that is that most critics I’ve interacted with believe, perhaps on an almost sub-conscious level, that the masses are not only less informed than they are (which is why they need to be provided with the critic’s valuable advice), but are actually less capable of informed, critical thought. That slight difference between “you’re too busy to watch everything; let me help you make a decision” and “you’re too ignorant to know what’s good; let me tell you what I think” is typically a lot more subtle in practice than those statements make it seem, but that’s still what comes across as arrogance in one form or another.
So, anyway, this brings us back to the topic in question: the ANN reviewers. The issue isn’t whether or not they’re good reviewers or critics. Clearly, the ANN reviews are intended for those whose opinions they value — those with opinions like their own. That’s no different from any other critic, really. “Objectivity” when offering opinions on art is simply a writing style. The issue is whether, given the authority conferred by the site where they’re published, they should make more of an effort to be less biased or offer alternate points of view. In other words, it annoys people that a site that proclaims itself to be a “news organization” can publish such biased, one-sided opinions without any attempt at a counterpoint. But this is a conscious decision on their part, likely because it reflects the opinion of the site founder (who has expressed his dislike for modern anime trends in numerous interviews). The net effect of their biased reviews is that their forums attract like-minded individuals (witness, for example, the general reaction when a new eroge adaptation is announced). As I said above, the objective of most critics is to have their opinion valued and/or taken seriously by those they respect, and that applies at both a micro and macro level. In other words, ANN uses their platform to appeal to those disenfranchised by moe~ and other recent industry trends.
I guess, ultimately, we just need to rid ourselves of this idea that any critic is objective, whether they’re self-published or operating under a “corporate” banner. Certainly, if we look at the mass media in general, we recognize the same trend — no media organization is bias-free. So, for the discerning reader, the only sensible course of action is to understand and recognize the biases, read multiple opinions, and decide for themselves where their opinion aligns. For the self-published critic without the advantage of a respected recognizable brand, the challenge is simply to get yourself noticed so that your opinions can become part of the exchange of ideas and attract the interest and respect of those you consider your target audience.
And, by the way, the natural enemy of a critic isn’t controversy, it’s obscurity. Really, all the controversy is doing is entrenching their loyal audience. In this case, it’s not really that fine a line between critic and troll, and people are taking the bait. Really, we should really just start calling a spade a spade, and work on providing legitimacy to the alternate perspective.
I agonize over this all the time–considering my “secret” double life (I don’t like talking about it much, for whatever reason), I spend far too much time thinking I’m too much “fanboy” and not enough “jaded elitist veteran”, perhaps due more to my company than anything else, but I certainly try to be as fair and civil as I can be, and at least convey whether or not the reader might enjoy the series regardless of my opinion of said series. Hell, I have the Nanoha review–it covers many of the same points, and I keep scrutinizing it, hoping to God I didn’t piss off the same crowd.
I think an important thing for any writer (published, blogger, forum poster, or instant messenger-er) is to realize that, no matter what, you can’t make everyone happy, but that does not necessarily give you license to actively pursue everyone’s unhappiness. ANN’s reviews are catching flack not only from people who disagree with the arbitrary letter grades given, but from people who agree with their opinions. I liked Casey Brienza’s review of the final Monster volumes–she spends about five paragraphs telling us how Monster fails to be literature on the level of a 1970s “classic” (I work in a library that has the book on the shelf, and I can’t for the life of me remember seeing it at any point in time–and I’ve worked there eight years, and it’s been checked out seventeen times) even though it allegedly “borrows heavily” from it, a paragraph or two saying “but it’s okay!” and then an A- overall. It doesn’t make any sense, and reading her reviews, I’m honestly surprised she likes anything, because she rarely speaks positively.
I think, in the end, I’d rather be viewed as too soft and conciliatory than too harsh and abrasive. And, as lelangir said, irrational argument is necessary to facilitate rational discussion, but I see no reason why irrational (or rational) argument should actively be hostile–hostility emerges naturally, yes, but actively instigating it seems in poor taste, and too much hostility means no one gets anywhere as both parties dig their feet into the ground and refuse to budge from increasingly illogical standpoints.
My understanding is the difference between a reviewer and a critic is thus:
A reviewer tells potential consumers what was good/bad about something, so that they can get an idea of whether or not they will like it.
A critic is part of the creative process, who analyzes the artistic value of something, providing feedback for the creator as well as analysis for the audience. Usually, the best critics have some experience creating the art form that they are critiquing.
According to this definition, it is pretty much impossible for ANY non-Japanese person to be a ‘true’ critic of anime, as their views have little to no effect on the industry in Japan. Nonetheless, that is what ANN tries to do.
Personally, I do appreciate that they try to hold anime up to a higher standard, and separate the truly standout stuff from the recycled ideas and mediocrity. And I for one am pretty irritated with how much anime throws in soft porn as a cheap way to bring in the ratings. On the other hand, I’ll admit they can be hard on dissenters.
However, their reviews recently seem to be getting unbalanced. I don’t mind them panning stuff I like (such as Death Note), but they often editorialize on a particular aspect of questionable relevance, rather than giving balanced analysis of the good and bad attributes – the Monster review OGT mentioned is probably the best example.
In the end, their reviews are one opinion among many, and should be taken as such.
@Lelangir: I don’t see how trolls provide critical thinking. I think your definition of a troll is more expansive: one that is mean but actually tries to make some good points. I will never be able to feel that a troll (by a strict definition) can ever be beneficial to a discussion since its sole aim is to rile you up.
I do agree that harmonious stagnancy really produces much less insightful discourse than the currents of arguments.
@Shin: Hah, I think the fact that critics existing to help other people find what they want to watch makes it paramount that he avoids (I suffer from this) genres that he will clearly hate due to his internal bias. I do not think that he should really restrain completely or be completely fair, That is perhaps not my full intention, but I think that a part of being fair is to write an entry that you are neutral about, and not something that you already have a negative view BEFORE watching/reviewing it.
There is a need for critics to sound less pompous because there is always a sense of arrogance whenever they start to write.I always find that the best writers out there also has this extremely arrogant edge to them. Is that a good thing, or should an anime critic be naturally arrogant and elitist? I am not too sure.
@LDC: Hmm, I didn’t find the review too offensive to be honest, even though it reeked a lot of elitism that I cannot stand.
@Omi: Hah, that is exactly why I want to pose the question whether there is an ideal critic. In addition, I mention how an anime critic is, but I never try to assert about an ideal anime critic but merely an anime critic that does his or her work.
Sad to say, many bloggers nowadays have this condescending attitude toward anime which begs the question: why are they still watching anime? ANN is clearly a good anime database by any chance, but some of their editorial choices have been dubious. I do not think that they are bad writers, but the way they are so defensive over their writing riles me up. Anyone, even a professional, should be open to some form of scrutiny. In addition, it is a job where you are dependent on the people reading your writing.
It’s sad how they flash their professional badge to prove that they are right.
@Ghost: Really? I personally feel that fanboying is always problematic simply because you often tend to overlook things that are seriously problematic but you are unwilling to consider it as it is the “norm” of this genre. It’s like how a fanboy of fanservice will say that anyone that criticizes the plot of a fanservice series is wrong. Am I supposed to think that fanservice series MUST BE mindless? I hope not.
@Amyable: I feel that too. He seems to do it just for the sake of it.
@Batezi: Yep, I find that to be of bad taste myself, so I apologize. That said, I still think that the show was terrible even after watching 3 episodes of it, but I refrain from writing anymore of it because it is really a waste of time for me.
I think that the key thing, now that you mention Casshern Sins, is that I have inadverterly slammed the series without looking at the target group they are aiming at. Yet, I do not think that some of my criticism are that far the mark, though some of them are thin-veiled hatred that went way over the line. Heh!
That is true, but another thing is that some people might do that DELIBERATELY.
@Gia: I will never admit as an anime critic. I know too little about old school anime, seiyuu and critical things that an anime critic should have some knowledge of. In terms of knowing about anime, I am sorely missing critical fragments of information compared to the typical blogger.
Your first paragraph exactly noted what an anime critic should possess as one of his qualities. I think that the hardest part is what you noted, and there are situations where I go like, “why is this shoujo series so crappy.” This includes Itazura no kiss that did well as a comedy series at times but grew very very thin as a shoujo anime series due to the suspense of belief.
@Sorrow: Yep, that’s generally my issue with ANN because they refuse to address any wrong-doing and slams the “i am a professional” badge on anyone who actually disagrees with them. Of course, it is probably hard for a “critic” to agree with anyone differing from them.
I think that the elitism part is never too bad a thing, but there seems to be an inability by people to differentiate between curbing your elitism and releasing it to the extent that even someone 20 metres from you can smell that freaking stench.
I think that an anime critic’s first priority is to know who you are writing for. I think anime critics often put their noses way too high after being popular that they forgot about the level ground that they started from.
I wouldn’t say that reviews is a narcissistic act, at least not for me. I review because I enjoy anime and I am glad to have people to discuss anime with me. Since it is strictly a recreational activity for me, I do wish to hear other opinions, be it agreeing or disagreeing. I can’t deny that I hope to be an anime critic of some reputation, but I am hardly there as yet.
@Panther: I guess, but I don’t usually have friends who watch anime. So I like to hear from others here in the blog. I was introduced to quite a few good shows by the kind readers of THAT.
@TheBigN: Really? I always see you as a rather objective writer because you know what you hate/like but yet can make proper judgments of what’s going on.
@Ajax: I am never bothering because I feel that it’s either you are a senior or a yes-man. If not, any attempt to say anything bad about the review will be turned away. I don’t like that suffocating situation. A forum is for open discussion and interesting communication with each other. Sadly, no one is able to grasp that.
@Lawl: and anoy. And the internet is sure a depressing place.
@Relentless: That is actually the irony because all anime critics, despite knowing that an objective stance is probably what it should be done, often stoops down to controversy and trolling because people like conflict. It’s an age-old concept deeply entrenched in newspaper writing, and it is still highly relevant in our context. Withouth any controversy, they go into obscurity. Even I fear that.
I do not think that any critic can be fully objective, but objectivity ought to be something that should be pursued as an ideal (try to be as objective as you can, even if full objectivity is impossible). I believe it is possible to be critical and provocative without trying to be a snoobish ass.
I totally agree with you that a news network and the authority confered to ANN means that they are also required to have more objectivity. I am not asking them to pander to the moe loving crowd but it will be better for them to be less egoistic and learn to be less derogatory toward certain groups of people. Sometimes, it makes it hard for me to read their reviews because I know that any notion of moe will be slammed more severely than anything in the world. I do not think that it is objective. You can say something that has blatant vibes but overly reacting seems to be the thought of the day for ANN.
This is not an article slamming ANN by the way, but you can tell of my views of ANN. I personally find their reviews to be decent, but their replies to the people who read their posts tend to be downright condenscending, arrogant and unforgivable for any person who likes anime. Those “seniors or professionals” are giving anime reviewers a very bad name.
@OGT: Me neither. I don’t believe you can ever make anyone completely happy because people want to pick on you all the time. Actually, I think being overly hostile reviews make it impossible for anyone to appreciate you. If you notice the good writers in newspapers, they are critical but they often offer a silver lining in their writing.
That is what makes that writer good because it is clear that he is writing in some form of “elitism”, yet never losing sight that it is the common person he is writing this for. That is what is good about writers such as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. I am appalled sometimes why people of such hostility can be part of an anime network that is so well respected, but i guess they are meant to provoke reactions and controversy. In that case, I guess it’s all good.
@Ian: I think that ANN has done a decent job in terms of its database, but I found it grossly isolating itself and becoming an ambiguous entity in many directions of the website. It constantly berates on anime fansubbing and bloggers who do so, yet does its own version every week. I do not buy into the notion, “they are different things” because you should be sticking to your guns, and not say “this is this, and that is that.” It’s on the same website after all.
I think if it is merely one opinion among many, iti s good. However, not all opinions are equal. Some weigh more than others, and that is the problem when those what weigh harder are giving it such a torrid time that people start to think that all anime is just crap after all.
That said, I can’t deny that 80 to 90% of all anime fare tends to be crap.
@Impz: I never said it was depressing, I simply stated what I felt it was. I for one enjoy the internet as it is now. For every downs kid who got hurt on the internet, millions more every day use the internet in ways that either give them productive results or a sense of satisfaction.
Personally, I feel it is a possibility that because the internet is overall so productive with very little to lose, the negative areas are just a natural counter-balance. I guess the analogy would be like death factors that keep a species from overpopulating?
Also your use of relating to professional writers of say a newspaper has a huge flaw. People in such positions don’t have to and probably never will have to respond to comments and such like people do on blogs. It’s a waste of time for them, because they know to convince one person of something is more work than to write an article for the general public and make a lot of money. Debating on the internet is one of the hardest things possible, because the anonymous status of the users and the setting is completely different in that of real life. It’d be like saying a UFC fighter or a real life soldier is the best at some real life Battle Royale situation. That person’s skill would HELP them yes, but the odds are still AGAINST them at being dominant because the lack of rules allows for more than 2-3 results such as win lose draw.
I’m not saying such people don’t participate on the internet for discussion, but make no mistake, they don’t put the same effort into meaningless debates trying super hard to the point of insulting others just to get a point across. Their care meter isn’t high enough to pursue such impossibilities when money can be made else where.
Actually just before I sleep, I found one decent analogy/metaphor/english whatever I’m bad please don’t hate.
As far as the topic goes, the internet/anime review/etc is just a branch off of speech and freedom of said speech. I would go so far as to say the internet is the evolved yet unrefined form of current real life speech.
Why would I take such a stance? Look at games or sports. They are systems with rules and goals with more than one side playing it. A game like checkers or chess is quite well known, and you can even say chess is a very respected game in terms of skill, knowledge, and experience. That would be real life speech/debates/reviews. However, nowadays there are games out there that have bajillions of more factors and game mechanics and rules incorporated. An MMO like WoW or Starcraft or Counterstrike is guaranteed to have more “possibilites” for different matches than chess ever will due to the giant leap in rules/features/game mechanics. Sure, chess can be considered more well respected, but that’s because it’s been ages and ages of people playing it and continuing the line, achieving high level play that no normal person playing 4 hours a week or so can do. It ceases to be something just anyone can master like Tic Tac Toe, which can even be considered a predecessor for Checkers and Chess. Video games would be the new form of speech known as the internet now. Sure it’s unrefined, the but possibilities of game play and experience are far above that of Chess without having to even be good at it. That is the internet, you don’t have to be good to be a critic, you don’t have to be nice, you can do what you want and at the same time, you must accept that it’s a rule that applies to everyone else too.
I have to go on a tangent because I’m terrible at this kind of stuff, but look at any game or sport you know. Everyone by now should have experienced a time when a group of people play a game/sport, but due to certain reasons they create special rules or limit certain game mechanics. That is exactly what “being nice” on the internet is. Because that group of people wants to collectively agree that certain things are not acceptable but they still want to play the game/sport. However, they know full well that because they play by those terms, they are not eligible to be “pros” yet in whatever game/sport they play. I don’t care if you are the god of touch football, you will never make the NFL.
That is the internet =] at this point you can get paid to write a review, but you are getting paid as a reviewer in real life that uses the internet as a medium, not someone who is a internet critic. There’s a difference.
Sounds crazy no? I’ll go to sleep and see in the morning if anyone even follows =P
ANN reviews suck and their reviewers wouldn’t know Picasso from Goatse.
If you want a history lesson of how stupid they have been, check out their review of Noir and their discussion of Azumanga Daioh.
> That said, I can’t deny that 80 to 90% of all anime fare tends to be crap.
Spot on. I know I watch crap for the crappy hell of it. There is also excellent stuff that I don’t watch because I would be bored.
I wrote a small reply here, but then it evolved into something slightly more big. So I ended up making a post about it on deculture :p
Anyways, the short of it is that I think that it is simply not possible for someone to be objective anymore. That word inherently is utter bullshit when it comes to humans. Unless an alien is reviewing something, no opinion is objective. That, or you have no heart :p
My point is, that these so called critics need not imply that their review of something is objective. Just give out your opinion. That’s all what it really is. If I want to buy a new game or watch a new anime, I ask around for what other people think. Based on their views and and my own anticipation for that title, I will go ahead and buy it.
Professional reviewers?
When such transparent negativity that reaches mockery is taken, the review itself becomes one-sided trash. What was it? Needless nitpicking and undertone assaults that pass itself as direct marketing suggestions than objective reviewing. Yeah.
Criticism in the form of critics tends to sway away from culture and genre ignorance. But doesn’t seem to be the case here. Such observers think of themselves as high authority over their respective pools. Moving into bias criticism, such “observer” are counted on to be intelligent at which they pick at when it comes to discussions of flaws and faults.
Carl Kimlinger – Pompous or Hero?
Indelicateness at one of its poorest. Objective reasoning is thrown out the window, only to be served with arrogance instead. “Professional” anime reviewer. One would expect such individuals to be able to dabble impressively in all areas of the cultural “otaku” world in which they knowingly work in. Instead, we are served with the most typical genre specific hands of contempt that seemingly have zero interest in anything otaku related or, to be specific here, moe. But wait… Otaku related? ANN “professional” anime reviewer disgusting over Otaku culture? All signs of a fun review, surely. Yeah…
With first glance, approaching the series with a mahou shoujo mindset would be unsurprising. Come prepared and be ready for any twists a modern mahou shoujo can bring. Fanservice? Pandering? And…moe? Sure, nothing new here. Fanservice is as old as the original Macross series itself and this series has undeniable fanservice and moe in various forms. But to think of it as solely to deliver that and only that would be a grave mistake.
The use of pandering to the targeted audiences goes without saying. Pandering of this type of genre should be taken into consideration to the whole series’ presentation. As Jpmeyer put it, “…it would not be pandering when one entertains the audience by figuring out how to combine elements of seemingly disparate genres in a way that creates a clever hybrid which flatters the audience’s pop cultural knowledge.”
Taking all that into consideration, the display of fanservice and pandering is something the series actually does well. Maybe too well for some with its detailed animation, magical circles galore, and highly detailed design during peaked scenes.
Carl’s stoic thinking of “nondescript hentai-ready character designs”, the absolute lolicon undertones, and the blatant captious remarks at scripted writer Tsuzuki’s “seemingly” hard-to-swallow scripting, in which, precociousness must be impossible and such admirable conviction in 9 year-olds is unrealistic are all nothing but hidden obsession to throw personal morality around over a real review. Adding to that, Carl’s questionable accusation with Tsuzuki’s “thinly-disguised S&M fantasies” is groundless. All this and more filled with connotative poison that is either: completely far from the truth, or completely true.
Agitate. That must be it. The whole experience was nothing but agitation for Kimlinger. A hardcore moviegoer zealously favors mindless action watches a lighthearted comedy drama and finding it full of disgust to his system for all of its typicalness and pop cultural “pandering” to such targeted audience. Nevertheless, said person is fully capable of judging and dissect without having strong oppressive malice, of course…?
Oppressive eyes see only things they want to perceive. Points are overlooked, wrong, or entirely misunderstood. “…skin-crawling lolicon fan-service—which includes a brutal whipping in which eight-year-old Fate’s clothes are flayed from her body as she hangs trussed from a rope—and the series is pretty grim going”. Is lolicon and perverted thoughts all Carl can think of? One have to imagine what was going through the reviewer’s mind when such dramatic and dark content that is suppose to raise questions with a mother-daughter relationship rather than be complete outright fanservice.
All that trouble of writing a weak review could have been spent better at understanding the characters, the thematic underlying thoughts of such introspected characters and Nanoha’s penchant on friendship, her endearing mentality when faced with a serious event even by the use of force. In place, there was picking at wounds created by the reviewer. No attention for the stronger elements that overshadows its shortcomings. A testament in perception ability turned true to the reviewer. To the extent of it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. What’s more is the brushing off characters so easily when one does not find them likable or realistic because of age due nonobjective reasoning is quite sad.
tl;dr – Carl Kimlinger = faggot
I only “review” what I really enjoy, unless something is so terribly bad and horrible that people must know about it (ex: Eragon and Battlefield Earth). I don’t feel like writing an entire entry against a series I dislike. I do not have the energy to use my blog as a soapbox to throw thinly veiled insults against fans of a given genre while posing as the hero of an alternative school of thought that shall right all the wrongs of a portion of the blogsphere..
Now about the critics themselves, I stopped giving critics credit since that day in the late 1990s at Cannes, when Tarantino got booed for being awarded for Pulp Fiction. This review at ANN just cemented my low opinion of them even more. It does not help that ANN seems to always give the reviews to the critics that hates the genre they are reviewing to the core.
Amazing. You have summarize the entire discretion into a singel sentence.
GJ.
Honestly, I actually resort to the Blog-sphere to get actual reviews on stuff. I’m a fan of the comedy/slice of life/light-hearted genre, and I’d rather someone who likes the same types of anime I do give me an opinion of whether or not the next anime that features that type of stuff would appeal to me. This is similar to why I don’t pay attention to the news for unbiased reporting – all news networks shove in their opinions about a particular news story (CNN would make fun of George Bush’s shoe-throwing incident; FAUX News would treat it as a terrorist attack). ANN has proved to many viewers out there that they are no different.
I want the Joe Watanabe of anime viewing to tell me what they think about something that just came out, not some “professional” that writes their review with flowery language and/or puts their spin all the while claiming that they are fair and balanced. I have to deal with enough of that on TV news, why does it have to come down to a hobby that I enjoy?
And another pet peeve I’ve been having, what’s with people sounding like thesauruses and graduate dissertation papers in their critiques? Do I go up to you and tell you “I WAS DEVOID OF A CELL PHONE” when I could just tell you that I lost my cell phone? Tell me you don’t like it because the plot doesn’t make sense, not that it was “lost in a sea of convolution and drudgery that only the most reviled of enthusiasts would tolerate”.
I think these guys at ANN seriously need to get BACK TO THE BASICS when it comes to reviewing anime. Keep it short, keep it sweet, and lastly, find some damn critics who actually LIKE the genre they’re reviewing.
“Keep it short, keep it sweet, and lastly, find some damn critics who actually LIKE the genre they’re reviewing.”
– Keirnoth
Oh, but you’re missing the point! Finding critics who “like the genre” would interfere with their ability to fairly criticize it. Obviously! I’m being facetious, but in all seriousness, many self-professed critics believe that they should watch as wide a variety of anime as possible, including in genres they traditionally dislike, because they believe that exposure improves their objectivity and understanding of what’s out there. I’ve heard some actually say that “watching bad anime improves your appreciation of good anime”. So with this in mind, a critic will trudge through a show they despise (even if they knew or should have known that they would hate it — some will actively avoid pre-info and just sit through entire shows at random) and, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, proceed to lambaste it for the reasons you might expect if you understood the critic’s established taste. Every once in a while they’ll stumble upon something that goes against the grain of their expectations, but that doesn’t tend to often be the case. (Though, in fairness, some critics argue that those few exceptions are worth all the failures.)
Basically, this whole thing is because, for whatever reason, published critics are typically grouped by medium, as opposed to by genre or other factors. (This is unlike bloggers, who tend to post about things they like, regardless of medium.) So if you look in a newspaper, magazine, or news program, you’ll have the “movie expert”, and the “book expert”, and the “theatre expert” or whatever. This sort of revolves around the theory that there are universal principles (of writing, film-making, directing, etc.) that somehow conspire to make a “good “, be it a movie, game, book, or, in this case, anime. This gives an illusion of objectivity (since they’ll watch anything in that medium), but this also creates a sort of insular culture unique to the critic scene that doesn’t always (often?) reflect the “mass market”. You see this all the time when you have a movie “the critics hate”, but goes on to be a box office success, and vice-versa. And the result of this disconnect is that the critics become even more disconnected from the general public, and grow to resent them for not understanding their own obviously-refined tastes. This is a sort of self-perpetuating cycle because the critics’ insight into the medium they cover is what gets passed down through schools to the next generation of critics, further ensuring the continued disconnect. (This is also reinforced, to a degree, by a desire to be recognized by their peers, as I talked about in my last comment.)
Right, wrong or indifferent, all of that above is something that “average Joe” has gotten used to already. They might read the reviews and consider it to a degree, but they’re much more likely to watch or not watch a movie (or whatever) based on the recommendations of their friends and others they personally know and trust. So critics can help or hinder a product’s success, especially in the early days, but ultimately they aren’t the sole (or even the largest) determining factor for most people. Even if people consider themselves fans of a certain medium, they’re usually savvy enough, after some experience, to understand the sort of shows they like and what they’re in the mood to see/read/whatever. So even if a show gets negative press from the critics, sooner or later the counter-argument can gain enough weight to trump that.
So, anyway, it seems to me that ANN is doing what it thinks is right for an “objective news organization” in assigning reviews to critics who don’t particularly like the genre they criticize. It “just so happens” that the results are in line with the site’s editorial views, because those are the sorts of people they’re going to attract (like-minded people tend to congregate). That’s going to continue unless they take deliberate steps to encourage and foster an alternate perspective. As it stands, though, they seem perfectly contented to see the other perspective mocked and quashed, probably because they feel that point of view is already more prevalent elsewhere (and, in their minds, largely among the less-sophisticated, less-refined masses who deserve to be mocked for their “inferior” taste).
In other words, I don’t think anything will fix the issue of ANN’s inherent bias short of new leadership at the top. What they could do is work to improve their tolerance, but these are people who generally seem to want their opinions heard (likely because they feel the market trends are against them). Like I said before, in the meantime, all the “rest of us” can do is offer a mature, reasonably-stated alternate perspective.
tl;dr: Critics are editorialists. Their opinions are worth considering, but look to the user community on the whole for more balanced aggregate feedback.
Commoners dictionary:
Q: What makes an anime good?
A: It has higher sales and higher ratings(and fall in your demographic, but is optional) and/or has awards.
Q: If an anime is good, it’s right to me to see it?
A: If you like it and it’s with your tastes, is good sign. If it is good, then you have chances to see a complete ending.
I think that the problem that many people have with some “professional reviewers” is that they for the most part look down at, or at least under rate the current popular “web darling” anime series. I don’t think that this is due to arrogance or snobbery but it’s due to them having vastly greater experience in those anime genres.
I am what you might call a well aged anime fan, I’ve literally watched over the last 30 years thousands of anime series and anime movies. So when I hear the latest web buzz over a hot new series I’ll watch a couple of episodes and see if it’s any good. But what I might consider to be a good series could be vastly different from what a new anime fan who has only seen one or two show from that genre might consider to be great.
But where I think that many fans get it wrong is that many people don’t get the diffrence between a reviewer and a critic. When I review something I try and give my impressions of the content, and emotional reactions to it in a fair way. But, if I do a critical look at a movie or series I compare and contrast that series or movie to all the other movies or series in that genre that I’ve seen, and place it in it’s proper place when compared to it’s predecessors. So a critical analysis of a current series might piss off many fans of that series.
More than troll, I think what lelangir really meant is either a devil’s advocate or an angel’s advocate, something I’ve come to delight in becoming one of as of late. You basically challenge an idea, either correct it and add your own insights, to show the “truth” you believe in, subject to the scrutiny of other people of course. That’s the way ideas evolve, right?
Whether that’s being a critic, well I guess that’s up for people to decide.
Every anime critic writes according to his vision of what anime should not be like.
Even if he gets massively flamed by bloggers and readers. A real critic will still criticise against the current.
Whereas someone reviewing and not showing overly radical opinions that would scare off the readers is merely a reviewer.
I, for example, would appreciate if there was more anime of the creativity calibre of Mushishi, Kino no Tabi, or Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei.
As you grow older, purely ‘fanserving’ series might lose their appeal. With no demand for more mature shows(preferably with a reasonable amount of boobies
) there is nothing to watch except live shows, such as House MD.
Mmm, House anime MD would be something
Is the presence of a Nanoha ad on this page deliberate or delicious irony?
How could I have possibly missed this entry?! @_@
4 Trackbacks
[...] ANN’s reviewers are critics? What makes an anime critic? [...]
[...] post is in response to what Impz wrote on “what makes an anime critic” after lol’ing with JPmeyer and having [...]
[...] last words on criticism Since this topic never dies, here are some final thoughts on [...]
[...] having read comments from all over the place, I was wondering why do we all complain (in general)? Critics exist to present a view that [...]