Forum - View topicThe 3 things about ANN Reviews.
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||
If we propose that an opinion (considered here as a mere linguistic act) is an expression of favour or some other subject-determined fact, then one indeed notices a problem here: The proper construal of a statement of opinion is, in the cases you mention, not a literal one. Seemingly, we are to interpret such a statement as indicating the writer's favour instead of describing states of affairs fully extrinsic to said writer, despite the sentential form of this expression indicating the latter. Now, you yourself acknowledge that this standard (and dare I say imprecise) practice has a non-semantic merit. By writing in a manner that falsely suggests the writer wishes to indicate facts about the work under review per se, a stronger persuasive affect results. It is perhaps for this reason that we warm to such deliberate inaccuracy in the writing style of a reviewer. As for the matter of determining this non-literal proper construal, perhaps we become aware that the writer speaks of her appreciation as much as she does of the show itself chiefly in virtue of the context within which she writes. One notes that this awareness is gained through our understanding of conventions, especially once we realise how disagreements over matters of opinion dissipate upon interpreting such statements non-literally. Unfortunately, I have had to learn this unwritten rule of interpretation through making assumptions of a writer's context, and through learning from erroneous judgements thereof. Still, I'm sure there are many people for whom the skill of interpretation is itself a much-appreciated activity. |
||||
|
||||
DragonsRevenge
 Posts: 1150 |
|
|||
|
At the risk of sounding like an idiot, I have no idea what you just said.
|
||||
|
||||
Dorcas_Aurelia
 Posts: 5344 Location: Philly |
|
|||
|
I looked up several of those words in case they didn't mean what I thought they meant. They meant what I thought they did, but I still don't understand what Zin5ki is getting at. I think it's just a really academic way of saying that opinions are subjective. Or that opinions presented in a way that looks like factual statements are still opinions.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Zin5ki
Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||
This is what I wished to communicate. The word "subjective" is one I try not to use without qualification however, lest I be misunderstood as proposing a thesis this term may denote aside the one I have in mind. You see, I hold that statements of opinion are to be interpreted as signifying the presence of a response, affection or similar mental state directed towards the work in question. Without going into further detail, there exist other possible views on the nature of opinions that would be distinct from mine, but would still meet at least a naïve condition of subjectivity. |
||||
|
||||
ArsenicSteel
 Posts: 2370 |
|
|||
Skipping over the past few grammar and style discussions, I find this point be the OP to ring true for some of the ANN reviewers. One of the last paragraphs will cover the voice audio. Some of the reviewers in that paragraph will mention the Japanese track in passing with little information as saying there is a JP track on disc. Then delve into the English track with praise, shout outs, and some critiques. Then they score the two tracks. Thank you for rating the tracks but can I get some reasoning in the article that is a little more in-depth then just saying their is a Japanese track. When I see certain names on top of reviews, I just google for other site. I know that information about the audio will not be presented in an unbiased fashion. |
||||
|
||||
|
Redbeard 101
Oscar the Grouch
Forums Superstar  Posts: 16935 |
|
|||
An easier thing to do if you just wanted a plot synopsis is read the back of the dvd case. Maybe reviewers should do that for work instead so people won't have be subjected to their opinions. Which btw complaining about that is hypocritical and just frakking hilarious because if you explain a show you're watching to a friend of yours who asks about it, or even a complete stranger, you're doing the same damn thing yourself. Giving them your opinion. Unless of course you're a monumental dick and simply toss the dvd case to them and tell them to read it for themselves. Just another case I think here of the reviews not being exactly what some people WANT to hear about the series they like so of course they question the site and reviewers themselves. Instead of simply accepting other people can in fact not like something they themselves like. Another win for the internet. |
||||
|
||||
Keonyn
 Subscriber Posts: 5567 Location: Coon Rapids, MN |
|
|||
|
As has been said, a review is an opinion, and that's all there is too it. Anime is an artform, and just like the saying goes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". To analyze anything, even on a technical level, opinion is still going to reign because art is subjective and viewed differently by every individual who views it.
Even on a technical level this is the case. You can get a show where one person says the animation was horrible and wooden, while another person will say it was good or great. The sub and dub debates clearly shows that one person will find an actors performance to be awful, and others will take the opposing stance. The moment a reviewer says anything that can be taken as a review of an artform it becomes their opinion. You simply can't have a review of art without an opinion. One reviewer could look at a painting and see a busy artstyle and hideously exaggerated brushstrokes, while another would love the energy of the piece and the way the brushstrokes amplified that. Neither are wrong, they just see things differently. The purpose of a review is not to give you a plot overview, which is all a review purged of opinion would be. The purpose of the review is to tell you how the author perceived the work, and to provide detailed information explaining that point of view so that you can use that as a guideline. If the author hated something that you don't hate, then you know that you might actually like what they disliked. The point is to clearly point out what they liked and didn't like and why, so that the reader can then use that information. Whether you agree or disagree with a reviewers take is irrelevant, because their job isn't to make up your mind for you, but just to make up their own mind and clarify why they did well enough so that others can gauge their own potential perception of the artwork based on that information. |
||||
|
||||
Tempest
 I Run this place.ANN Publisher  Posts: 10420 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
|
Regarding the difference between, "XYZ's voice acting is no good" and "IMHO XYZ's voice acting is no good," my old policy, which I conveyed to ANN's reviewers when I managed them, was that they should only use the latter form is they want to make it expressly clear that the statement is their personal opinion.
Obviously every subjective statement in a review is opinion. It would be ridiculous to preface every statement in a review with "IMHO" or some variation thereof. The only time a reviewer should do this is if they feel their opinion on that particular issue is highly influenced by their personal tastes. Another way to look at it is that it is a statement they wish to make, but they intentionally want to devalue the statement, because adding the IMHO does exactly that, it weakens the statement. Now then... there's been a lot of debate about "objective" reviews. Obviously, as has been stated before, a purely objective review isn't a review at all, it's a plot/info synopsis. We have the encyclopedia for that. Our reviewers do however try to minimize the subjectivity of a review by trying to remove some of their personal tastes from the review. It's not possible for their review to be completely uncolored by their personal tastes, but for the most part good reviewers are able to do this, and I'm satisfied that ANN's reviewers do a good job of it. Circling back to the IMHO issue, IMHO statements are made when the reviewer feels that their personal tastes are playing a significant role in a particular statement. So there you have it, reviews are matters of opinion, some of that opinion is the result of analysis, and some of it is purely a matter of taste. Asking for a review devoid of opinion is asking for something other than a review. On a note, I stated above "when I managed ANN's reviewers." I don't do this myself anymore, Zac handles this. While he and I have slightly differing opinions on the philosophy of reviews, the reviews that result from his editorial oversight have always more than satisfied my criteria. All our reviewers have different styles, and different tastes, but they all manage to pass on to the reader the information the reader needs to make his or her own judgement about the show, and they manage to entertain the reader at the same time. I couldn't ask for more, I don't ask for more, and I won't ask for more. |
||||
|
||||
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||
Slightly OT: I bet at least 1/3 of ANN's user base don't use it or don't even know its existence. Even some subscribers admit they haven't tried utilizing the Encyclopedia, let alone casual users and guests. |
||||
|
||||
|
Key
Moderator
 Posts: 18166 Location: Indianapolis, IN (formerly Mimiho Valley) |
|
|||
This varies from reviewer to reviewer because we each have our own specialties. That's why when Carl and I do the Year in Review pieces, I always give the awards for English dub performances and he always give the awards for Japanese dub performances. I'd go as far as saying I'm an expert on English dubs, as I can name and/or identify by performance most of the prolific English VA talent out there. By comparison, the number of seiyuu that I can name off of the top of my head and/or consistently identify in Japanese dubs could probably be counted on one hand. Because of that, I always concentrate much more on how the dub performances/script fit, and how they compare to the Japanese performances, than I do on the quality of the Japanese vocal work because I know I'm nowhere near as good a judge on the latter. If you don't give a damn about English performances and only care about the quality of the Japanese performances then that section of my reviews is going to be a waste of time for you.
Given his comments, I have to wonder if he's talking about me here. . . 
|
||||
|
||||
|
DragonsRevenge
Posts: 1150 |
|
|||
I love the encyclopedia, it's my favorite part of the main site. I've gotten lost in "wiki mode" by looking up one title, then checking out a seiyuu in a role and seeing what she was in, clicking on a show, clicking on a seiyuu and so on. I'll end up spending a good two hours doing that. Some descriptions aren't as detailed as i'd like, but I'm sure that's a result of that title's availibility. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group