Forum - View topicThe 3 things about ANN Reviews.
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||||||||
I should assume that this would entail outlying ones attitudes towards the title in question -one's liking or disliking of it etc.- whilst also providing a description of the elements which brought about these attitudes. I suppose it'd bode well for readers unacquainted with the writer's tastes, as the description itself, as abstracted from the writer's personal judgements of it, may be sufficient for the reader to harbour an interest or be justifiably deterred. Being priorly acquainted with the reviewer is still to be recommended, however.
This tendency could complicate issues. One needs to avoid a 'weak' writing style, as penguintruth notes, whilst at the same time one doesn't wish to be misread as imparting a subject non-specific belief about the material in review. Striking a happy medium, I suppose. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||||||||
Sorry. I had assumed the readers would know of the 4 parts to a review (synopsis, pros, cons, and summary). Each part I delivered was done in first person, as opposed to the "dry" telling of third person. By denoting it was my review, it connected with the audience, not distance them. This is what he stated to the class.
And this, JesuOtaku, is where the breakdown occurs. Let me ask you: Why isn't the reviewer your friend? After all, they share the same common interest as you do: anime. And you should care what they think. If you truly didn't, you wouldn't be reading any review. As you stated, they're not a thesis, and thus, not factual (well, aside from the synopsis). Yes, in some cases, the reviews tend to get a bit off topic for more in-depth personalization, but this shouldn't mean the entire review shouldn't include them. Think how you'd react if it were one of your friends stating the same thing? Would you berate them the same way Carl was berated? Seriously doubtful. The problem with third party reviews is that they're taken as what the reviewer states is fact, not opinion. A review is often ripped apart because of it. Yes, we're debating semantics, but it's one based on psychology. Reviewers who address their audience as broadly as they can are going to suffer more backlash as the number of differing opinions increases. Same thing here. If Carl wrote that Death Note review with more personalized styling, I doubt it would have received such harsh criticism. As humans, we're quick to jump on disagreeing opinions not for the statement, but why the statement was made. If we deem the statement was based on "stupidity", we're going to dismiss everything else said. Again, this is because many deem a third party review as "factual". I know psychology isn't up everyone's arena, but it has a significant impact when trying to address other people. If a person is going to treat both the reviewer and review as impersonal, then there's no justification for a personal reply. Go read the comments in the Death Note Box Set 1 Reviews. Pretty much all of them use "I" or some personal objection. If the review was impersonal, why are the replies not? I had asked the staff of ANN on what it would take to be a reviewer, but I've since given up on this because every review I've read is third person. I can't do reviews like this, simply because I know my audience. I want people to put trust in my reviews, not treat me as some monotonous bot that spews text at every DVD I watch and worse, will take seconds to jump down the review. I can take backlash of those challenging my opinions, but not against the review itself. I'm always up for debating why I feel the way I do, but this isn't the fault of the review. It's my fault for not conveying this in the first place. After all, we're supposed to be friends, right? You should care what I think, just as I would care what you think. Especially since we have the same love of anime. We may not see eye-to-eye with every series, but what I like and what you like are based on personal preferences. But even this shouldn't be the "solid rule" to exclude something based on an opinion. Everyone should try something to form their own opinions, and then share them. Regardless how those opinions are formed. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Key
Moderator
 Posts: 18187 Location: Indianapolis, IN (formerly Mimiho Valley) |
|
|||||||||
|
I've been told by editors that using third-person perspective almost exclusively in reviews is considered a sign of professionalism. I have also come to agree with this sentiment, as third-person gives more of a sense of being an authority on a subject (despite still being opinions), whereas first-person gives more of a purely opinionated feel.
Granted, there are still instances where inserting an occasional first-person reference is desirable or even necessary in reviews; in my experience, this is primarily appropriate in places where a personal observation is used to illustrate a point or put something into context. Those are pretty much the only times I use first-person in my reviews these days, but if you ever come across any of my reviews from the first 6-8 months of 2005 then you might notice that I used to take a more first-person style. Then a certain someone set me straight on that. 
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Kimiko_0
 Posts: 1796 Location: Leiden, NL, EU |
|
|||||||||
|
Third person sounds more authoritative. While it may help you come across as knowing what you're talking about, it may also piss people off if they don't agree with you, precisely because of your authoritative stance.
First person sounds more personal/intimate, like you're telling a friend about something. To some it may come across as wishy-washy, as if you're unsure about what you're talking about. To others it may feel more friendly. Even if people don't agree with you, they probably won't get pissed off, precisely because you framed your descriptions as personal opinion. Which tone you prefer (whether as a reader or writer) depends of course on your own personality. Regardless, it's good to be aware of what you're doing and how it will come across. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||||||||
Crap. Lost another one. But more on this below...
Then maybe it's time to ask this someone if they're willing to open up a bit and understand the purpose of the review. Especially from those who don't view ANN as professional to begin with. No offense to anyone running this site, but I see it as a fan-run site for fans. After all, how much of the content is provided by volunteers? ANN has set itself up to be the dominant force for anime information simply because it related to the fans by giving them what they want. Now to turn around and go "professional" in a review? Makes no sense to me. I just got done reading Bamboo's reviews in this week's Shelf Life and quickly noted the "I" statements she made. But this is her style, and it's one of the reasons I enjoy reading her opinions. (I especially love how she noted fans of He is my master are going to accuse her of puppy kicking!) The note was interesting to read because even she knows her opinions, regardless how personal or not, will be the target of those who disagree. So, to the "Powers That Be", maybe allow a little more open-ended review styling of the staff? After all, they're fans trying to connect with other fans. After all, I don't believe anyone here would consider Carl's review of Death Note to be any level of "professional", garnered by the replies left by fans. So, Key, I'm fighting for you! Here's to hoping you can go back to your earlier reviews and I not pick on you about your use of "moe" and "fanservice".
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||||||
The encyclopedia is all volunteer, with the exception of the coding, which is done by a paid employee. Other than that (plus obviously the forums), every word you read on ANN is paid for. I'm not sure what qualifications we would have to meet for you to consider us "professional", but then again I honestly do not care about whatever your weird personal standards are. I do this for a living, it is my full-time job. Same with Justin. I've been working in this field for a decade. I am not just a fan working for a fan site. Period.
Shelf Life is a column. The full-length front page reviews are a little more formal. I am also very flexible and do not have a list of strict rules that people have to follow; if every now and then a formal review falls outside the basic framework we follow, that's fine.
The reviews are fine.
Again we see how the term 'professional' has become a meaningless buzzword people who do not work in a given industry or at a given company will throw at the people who do when said people say or do something they don't like or disagree with.
Please don't waste your time trying to change editorial policy in the forums. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||||||||
Whoa there, cowboy. Don't confuse the staff with the site. Note the use of the word "ANN", which was assumed, on my part, to be run by fans. Easy to do when nothing I've read indicates ANN is a business entity but is run by those who've worked in the profession. We'll throw this to ignorance on my part for the assumption. Now that I know better, it's a mistake which won't happen again.
I've read the staff bios, Zac. I know the credentials (what's been offered, anyway). But if you think I'm able to separate the staff list from "corporate" and "volunteer", you're mistaken. Hence how my ignorance was formed ANN is run by fans, regardless of their standing in the industry.
I think you meant to say "expected" buzzword? Or should I take the time to strip out every use of the word "professional" as garnered by the review by Carl? I didn't write them. The readers did. I may have attached such lack of professionalism (mistakenly) to the site, but clearly, not once, did I ever to the staff. People do view ANN reviewers as professionals. I'm one of them.
I guess the wink smiley didn't obscure the fact the statement was made in jest. If I truly had an issue with the reviews, I'd be sending an email to [out of date email address]. Note the empty inbox regarding my opinion how reviews are written at ANN. You'd be mistaken to think I expect my opinions thrown publicly into a thread would have any bearing on those who run the site to change it. It's just nice to vent them out given I've had issues with a few reviews, most of which were not voiced. I tend to piss people off when I do, so it's best for me to just keep my mouth shut on the matter. There's a difference between constructive criticism and outright bitching. I prefer the former, but just don't convey it well, sounding like the latter. The irony doesn't escape me here. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Richard J.
 Posts: 3367 Location: Sic Semper Tyrannis. |
|
|||||||||
|
Going back to the suggestion of giving the reviewers their own pages, I'd be in favor of this for the benefit of the organizational value (it would be much easier to search for reviews by particular reviewers this way) and if the pages contained some trivia about the reviewers. Little things like what genres they admit to hating and the like. It would help to know before reading a review if the person will treat it remotely objectively or if they will attack a genre series for being, well, a genre series.
Glad I missed the Death Note triggered debate on Carl's work. I'd have probably posted something inappropriate since I'm one of those who really doesn't enjoy his reviews. I've learned to just not read them. While it's true that a bad review from someone with opposite views can be useful in finding a series you'll like, sometimes the high-blood pressure and irritation just isn't worth it. Not to say Carl can't write to "professional" standards, whatever those may be, just saying that reading his reviews tends to make me feel a lot of negative emotions. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
catstigereye
Posts: 341 |
|
|||||||||
|
I do not read the reviews posted on this site any more. it would seem many of the anime i enjoy the people with the reviews i can not agree with at all. and many of these shows i have seen.
But like a wide range of anime and understand that most people fall into this or that when it comes to anime. I do not understand the reviews listed on this site. I enjoy the news a lot so thanks for that but not the reviews so much. I get a lot of the information i have from this site and wiki about the animes i love and enjoy. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Wrathful
 Posts: 372 |
|
|||||||||
|
And I thought some of the reviews were little harsher than necessary and a bit biased. I won't name which because I forgot.
I enjoy Theron Martin's review. I think he's the more lenient and I generally agree with his review. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
DragonsRevenge
 Posts: 1150 |
|
|||||||||
|
I think all the reviews are incredibly well written, though they tend to get a little wordy at times, they're still great to read, whether I agree with them or not.
My only complaint is when discussing the pros and cons, they throw in something extremely trivial, as if that would affect the overall score. Maybe it does. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but I can certainly find several if I browse the reviews. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Teriyaki Terrier
 Posts: 5689 |
|
|||||||||
|
I've always enjoyed reading the Anime News Network reviews of anime and manga. Zac is clearly the most hilarious writer here and I've either laughed or really enjoyed each and every review he has written.
The other reviewers are fine and are quite intelligent. I much rather a review that may be "wordy" but otherwise well written, has absolutely no spelling errors and for the most part, follows MLA format than a review that constantly has tons of errors, is opinionated and doesn't follow MLA at all. Even worse is if the reviewer doesn't even know what MLA format is. In short, I rather read reviews from elite professionals than a person that doesn't have any credentials. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Kimiko_0
Posts: 1796 Location: Leiden, NL, EU |
|
|||||||||
|
What does this 'MLA' mean?
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
braves
 Posts: 2309 Location: Puerto Rico (but living in Texas) |
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Kimiko_0
Posts: 1796 Location: Leiden, NL, EU |
|
|||||||||
|
And what does 'MLA format' mean for reviews?
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Could you go into more detail?  |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group