|
My anime list consists of various shows which I have watched either by myself or with people I know. Most of the low rated shows which I have watched to completion have been with others as I would have dropped them if I were watching them by myself. My manga list is entirely my personal reading.
While I once had another account which housed a list of several more series than are on this list, I no longer use it as the way I look at writing has changed. I do not consider myself a fan of anime and manga, however I do not discount it. I see it as another medium for storytelling and presenting ideas, and thus look at it as another option among many options. I rate based on many criteria which would take far too long to explain in this section of text. My rating scale is as follows: 10/10 - Perfection. Something at this rating level will be without error and enjoyable on many levels. It will have excellent characters, plot, and a good setting. It will also include proper pacing, foreshadowing, and be completely devoid of cliche (the story must be creative and new). Stories of this level should have several deeper themes, interesting ideas and subtleties. 9/10 - Excellent. Something at this rating level will be almost devoid of error and will contain several aspects approaching those of a perfect story. 8/10 - Very good. Something at this rating level will have very few errors, and even at that the errors are minor. Many aspects as the same as an excellent story, but will be missing sections or suboptimal in others. 7/10 - Good. Something of this rating level will have a few noticeable errors, but will still work well enough to remain good. Stories that come in at an 8 usually can be downgraded to a 7 due to dips in quality or inconsistency of writing. 6/10 - Okay. Something of this rating level will have many parts that are good, but will also contain some vital flaws. It will have a few things that hamper the story and prevent it from reaching a 7+ rating. Several times, stories of this level will be imbalanced or ruined by certain aspects. 5/10 - Mediocre. Something of this rating level will sound good in theory, but will squander its potential until the point of audience apathy. Generally these stories will be annoyingly neutral and just on the edge of being bad. 4/10 - Somewhat bad. Something of this rating level will have several glaring flaws and stupidities, but will still manage to do a good job with what it has. 3/10 - Bad. Something of this rating level will be filled with flaws, but will still manage to be coherent and try. These stories will be so full of problems that it will fail to develop any attachment or enjoyment within the audience. 2/10 - Awful. Something of this rating level will contain a plethora of stupidities, cliches, conveniences, exploitations, etc... Generally these stories will be filled with errors and be devoid of any major positive aspects. Most of the time, these stories will feel loose, dreamlike, unstructured, and bad even compared to other bad stories. 1/10 - Terrible. Something of this rating level will not only be filled completely with errors, it will also be utter nonsense and a showcase of the worst aspects of media. These stories are weak all around and so stupid that it is difficult to imagine why anyone would ever conceive of such a thing. 0/10 - This special class of terrible is almost unreachable. It is reserved for the worst drivel imaginable. A few notes about how I view stories and rate them: The different types of enjoyment Type 1 - Entertainment : A shallow form of enjoyment whereupon certain events in the show are exciting. For many people, this includes silly events, over the top violence/explosions, and sexual exploitation. Some lower levels of humor may also fall into this category. Type 2 - Immersion : Immersion implies that the audience is experiencing the suspension of disbelief and thus empathizes with the scenarios, setting, and characters in the media. This is generally accomplished through the quality of writing (including empathizable and human-feeling characters, detailed and complex world, interesting and engaging plot, and a strong internal logical consistency). Type 3 - Intellectual : Occurs when a particular media presents interesting ideas, deeper themes, subtleties, literary technique (eg. allegory), and new or intelligent ways of looking at things. It also occurs when a story is well crafted enough to garner respect for the writer's intelligence. Note: I typically enjoy types 2 and 3 significantly more than type 1. Levels of truth Given that truth can be interpreted in many ways, I believe that there is a hierarchy of truth ranging from objectivity to fiction. The following is a list of types of truth, from the most objective to the most subjective: 1) Absolute truth: This is the actual truth of the universe. However, this level of truth is most likely impossible to know. All that we can prove is that some abstract consciousness exists and that this consciousness is one's self. Beyond that, everything else could be a programmable input into that consciousness and not actually 'real'. There is no way that we could tell. It is also impossible to know as our universe could be a child universe which exists within a larger parent universe. Given that the parent universe does not interfere with the child universe, then the child universe can be interpreted as a closed system and thus in-universe truth may exist. However, given the virtualization theory we cannot say if the universe is real or virtualized. However, there are indicators that say that even a virtual universe could be considered objective or 'real'. The constituencies for a universe are as follows: it must have a state and a set of rules which dictate how the state changes, and it must not require external state to explain the internal state (and thus any parent universe cannot modify the child universe). Therefore, it may be said that even a computer program might be its own universe. However, I have not heard of a computer program capable of sentience (although I have heard of some capable of creating complex internal universes), and thus we should not overvalue non-complex systems by asserting that they have 'universal right' (or whatever people would come up with to attempt to skew values). Another issue with absolute truth is the debate as to whether or not we would ever be able to perceive it. Given the fact that everyone has their own cognitive and perceptual bias it can be argued that we all see the universe in different ways. However, using critical thinking, science, and a system of proof we can learn facts about how the universe operates regardless of our perception. As one other note: sentience is achieved through self reference. One perceives the changes they make on the environment around them and thus learns the concept of 'self'. This also gives rise to the basic needs of sentience: memory, action, perception, and processing. 2) Universal truth: This constitutes the workings and rules of the universe. I also refer to this level as 'scientific truth', although as some scientific concepts have been proven incorrect later I believe that 'scientific truth' refers to a level just below universal truth. 3) Collective truth: This constitutes the shared truth as perceived by a collective. Unfortunately, due to confirmation bias one cannot judge the value of the truth by the size of the group. 4) Personal truth: This constitutes one's own standpoint. This receives a lower value than collective truth as it has not been fact checked or tested by an external source. 5) Fictional truth: This constitutes a temporary truth that is created to be used in stories or lies/misbeliefs. It does not hold up in reality, but within the constrained situation it may be believed. This also includes truths where one may know the information is false but still goes along with it (metacognition/scenarios). Overall, I believe that the best way to find what is more likely to be true is through debate and logical analysis (critical thinking). The point with the stronger logic behind it is more likely to be true. Debate is a great tool for the development of standpoints as it allows one to fact-check and strengthen their own standpoint or take the standpoint of the opposition when their standpoint fails. Also, as a side note I would like to point out that anybody that mistakes fiction (eg. anime/manga) for the truth is deluded and immature. Suspension of disbelief Believe it or not, the suspension of disbelief was originally written about in an essay which stated that it was the writer's job to create the suspension of disbelief, not the audience's. The writer must be able to write with such a speculative ability and logical consistency that the audience can accept it as a fictional truth. When a story achieves the suspension of disbelief, the audience can allow themselves to be immersed into the story. This immersion allows the audience to become empathetic to the scenario, setting, or characters and achieve the emotional connection to the story that makes it enjoyable. Therefore, it is important to ensure that a story has as few errors as possible to generate optimal immersion and therefore emotional enjoyment. This is most heavily used in types 2 and 3 enjoyment stories. Internal logical consistency If a story is not logically consistent with its own ideas, then these inconsistencies (or 'issues') will break the audience's suspension of disbelief and thus make it significantly more difficult to achieve immersion. Several stories attempt to portray world with similar workings to our own. In these cases, anything that would not occur in reality should not occur in the story. Some may argue that these events might make sense in-universe, but this is entirely discounting the differences in that universe those changes would make. It is very difficult for any writer to create a believable world that is significantly changed from reality. However, in many genres of fiction writers strive to create worlds very unlike our own (eg. Fantasy, Sci-Fi). These worlds can work in stories because it is interpreted as a 'what if' thought experiment. However, many writers choose to write generic worlds and never fully explore the implications that . This, however, does not mean that these genres cannot be interesting as they provide interesting points of view and escapism. However, this escapism can prove to be an issue when 'cheap' mechanics and massive improbabilities are introduced as these are often transparent and can annoy the audience and break the suspension of disbelief. Note: I do enjoy Fantasy and Science Fiction, but I am not a fan of overly escapist stories. I prefer fantasy where the worlds are well constructed and make sense (and do not conform to the typical genre cliches). Also, I prefer hard science fiction (especially speculative near-future stories); although soft science fiction is occasionally okay. Empathy Empathy is one of the major reasons why we are able to enjoy media as we do. While empathy normally constitutes our ability to 'feel for' other beings or situations in reality, it is also the emotional connection we make to media and other fictional contexts. This connection is created because we accept the media as a temporary 'pseudo-reality' separate from our own and find things within this 'pseudo-reality' to feel for. We are more likely to empathize with things that we relate to or feel strongly about. Empathy occurs due to projection. Projection occurs when we find an 'in-point' into the story and project ourselves into that part of the fictional scenario. This can include projecting ourselves as an observer or projecting ourselves onto a character that we find empathizable. Projecting one's self as an observer is usually caused by an excellent setting or plot. We empathize with the scenarios or the world that the story creates and thus use those very things as our 'in-points' to be absorbed into the story. Projecting one's self onto a character usually occurs when a character shares attributes with the audience or evokes certain things that the audience feels strongly about. However, this might also occur when the audience notices an idealized character or situation and wants to be that character or in that situation. While different people will experience different levels of projection (some remain mainly detached from the story), a connection to the story is still required for these kinds of emotional effects and opinion formation to occur. Empathy works best when the audience has a preexisting emotional context into a situation and can form opinions about that situation. Communication and metacognition Metacognition is a powerful tool which we utilize for several reasons. It allows us to monitor our own thought process and modify it if necessary. Two important metacognitive scenarios are everyday communication and the enjoyment of fiction. Both of these tasks involve thinking within a different context and working with truths other than those that you actively believe. In communication, one needs to model the other party's logic to determine how to best communicate something to them. The better the logical model of the receiving party, the more effective one can be in communicating ideas and achieving reactions. However, since many people have varied beliefs this involves thinking in the context of methodologies and truths that may not be optimal to the communicator. This is where metacognition becomes important, as another faculty of metacognition is the ability to create a separate context with different truths and methodologies and work within it, thus effectively thinking in an entirely different way. This ability to actively hold and act on 'false' or different truths depending on what is necessary in a given situation is thus very important for communication, as effective communication requires the modeling of the receiver. These abilities are also very important for similar reasons in creating and consuming stories. A story is essentially a fictional world with its own set of rules, logic, and occurrences. In order to work within this context, one must be able to model or 'understand' the logic of the world presented in the story. This involves creating a separate mental context; a major part of metacognition. If we did not create this separate mental context, we would need to actually believe what was happening in the story to get absorbed into it or to write it in the first place. This would lead to a great deal of false information accepted as reality, and these pervasive beliefs would prove to be harmful for everyone. Therefore, as consumers of fictional media and individuals within a social situation we must work to develop our metacognition to facilitate better communication and safer enjoyment of fictional media. Cliches and issues caused by their usage A cliche is a repeated element in writing which is typically copied by many writers in an attempt to emulate the success of a 'respected' story. Writers notice one or more elements in other stories which they want to emulate and thus attempt to incorporate them into their own work. This creates a significant amount of repetition in stories and leads to predictability and loss of context. Generally, when a writer copies an element from another story they do not consider the context of that element. The reasoning behind the original incorporation of the cliche is lost and the effects of that cliche are generally not considered either. Thus, many repetitions of a cliche lose their original value and introduce logical error into the story. However, some writers understand the context and extend the cliches into interesting contexts and studies. These writers still occasionally suffer from the other issue of cliches which is the fact that repetition leads to predictability. The use of a cliche does not just point to the laziness of the original author, but it also removes tension from the story as the audience will understand the eventual outcome of the cliche. This repetition also has another detrimental effect. The more that a person experiences an event in a specific context, the less of an emotional reaction they will have to further repeated occurrences. For example, some individuals enjoy explosions in their media. However, when they are shown a two hour explosion reel, they quickly become bored from the repetition. This lessened emotional impact of further repeated stimulus is a major risk associated with the inclusion of cliches in stories. note: the below section is entirely my own deduction as has not been tested or verified However, some still enjoy cliches. The enjoyment of this repetition can be explained with the concept of psychological conditioning. Given that the human brain is excellent at pattern recognition, we are good at finding associations between stimulus and outcome. The more we see a cliche in media we find enjoyable, the stronger the link is between the occurrence of the cliche and the enjoyment of a particular media. Due to this link, the occurrence of a cliche may trigger a local feeling of enjoyment. However, many view media with greater complexity and thus realize that the enjoyment of a story is not related to the inclusion of a specific element, rather it is related to the construction of the story as a whole. The shortcomings of genre writing Genre writing is the act of specifically attempting to fit a story into a specific genre to attract fans of that particular genre. A genre is a specific methodology of story writing, including semi-standardized settings, characters, and cliches. Generally genres are built when a story of a particular type is deemed favorable enough to warrant many other creators to copy its aesthetics, cliches, and stylistic biases. The formation of genres works in a similar way to the formation and repetition of cliches. The major issue with genre writing is that it imposes several restrictions on a story instead of letting it develop naturally. This leads to many writers who copy the same cliches without considering their original contexts, reasoning, and causes or effects. A genre essentially becomes formulaic and loses the proper logic and reasoning as to why these elements were included in stories in the first place. A good writer will not attempt to work within genre conventions, but will rather write a story which makes sense without any particular genre in mind. This provides a great boost to the internal logical consistency of the story and ensures that the story remains novel and interesting rather than predictable and repetitive. Since genres imply conventions and cliches, I believe that it is important for writers to attempt to write what makes sense rather than what a specific genre dictates. Please note that since genres encompass large areas of writing, some stories may be assigned fitting genres when these genres were not originally targeted. While these stories technically fall into that genre, they are generally noticeable by their higher quality writing and deviance from convention. Many of these types of stories can also fall under multiple genres. Novelty and value Novelty is an excellent way of combating the degradation of emotional reaction due to repetition. With the inclusion of novel elements in a story the writer effectively ensures that the audience does not suffer from reduced reaction to repeated elements. Novelty also ensures that the audience is actively thinking as the audience will attempt to find the logical connections that dictate what will occur next. However, too much novelty is detrimental to a story. Sometimes, novelty is inserted for no other reason than to be novel. This kind of novelty frequently does not not assist in developing the story and may lead to incomprehensibility due to its disconnected nature. The value of novelty can be determined when it is examined in the context of the story. A novelty will have a higher value if it works with the internal logical consistency of the story and works to further the effect of the story. In addition, novelty that is similar to or works with existing concepts is of higher value because the audience will frequently empathize more with things that are more closely related to their experience. Therefore, the inclusion of novel aspects in a story should always be in a way that does not disrupt the story and helps to increase the impact of the story. This exposes an issue with the avant-garde movement; a movement where novelty is utilized for the sake of novelty rather than to further the effect and construction of a story. Many works produced by this movement lack enjoyability or impact as the novelty does not assist but is rather detrimental to the works in question due to its disassociated or incomprehensible natures. Novelty should only be included if it improves the media in question. Context and pacing Context in a story is important as it ensures that the current event is fully understood and thus increases the impact of that event. Context refers to the understanding of the logic surrounding an event and its implications. This deeper understanding of a situation provides an abundance of 'in-points' into the situation and thus furthers audience immersion. Proper context takes time to build; therefore any story that properly builds context will be slower paced than a story with weaker context. This underscores the importance of proper pacing in a story. However, a story which spends too much time on building context might also induce audience boredom. If the events in a story do not occur at a reasonable pace, the audience will perceive a lack of stimulation and will grow detached from the story. Conversely, if the story is paced too quickly proper context will no be built and the events in the story will feel meaningless. The inclusion of proper context in a story is difficult as it requires a balance between an acceptable frequency of story events and context building for each event. This is a challenge that every writer faces and several stories fail to accomplish. Note: I prefer well established context and therefore slower pacing in stories. Realism and the problems with idealism and cynicism A common issue with many stories is the tendency to favor either idealism or cynicism over a realistic viewpoint. By definition, idealism implies a belief in ideal scenarios and therefore a bias towards overly positive thinking. Also, cynicism implies a bias towards accentuating the negative in any scenario. Both are a type of bias and are therefore noticeable as unrealistic elements in a story. This can have the effect of breaking the suspension of disbelief and therefore ruining immersion. If a bias is present in a story, it should be explained to ensure that the internal logical consistency is understood. However, many explanations of these kinds of biases frequently feel cheap and transparent. Similarly , many stories contain contrived and biased endings that employ deus-ex-machina. Therefore, the best way to ensure that immersion is not broken is to write from the perspective of a realist. Writing from the perspective of a realist is also beneficial in increasing the impact of a story. If a story is biased too much towards the negative, the audience will simply not care about the story as they will see nothing worth caring about. If a story is biased too much towards the positive the events of the story will feel meaningless as there was no struggle to attain these outcomes. It is also important to include a realistic amount of both positive and negative aspects into a story due to the relativity of happiness. An individual with barely any positive aspects in their life will typically be happier with a given positive event. An individual with a significant amount of positive aspects in their life will typically underappreciate a given positive event as that kind of event has become commonplace to them. This occurs because we are more likely to perceive things relative to our current context. Given this relativity, the audience will be more likely to experience a more significant emotional reaction to a story if it contains a balance of positive and negative aspects. The disillusionment and ability to accept both the positive and negative aspects of life without bias required to write in this manner is also known as realism. Morality and the happy ending problem Similarly to the way that many stories take a simplified approach to the positivity or negativity of life, many stories are written from an extremely undeveloped moral standpoint. This oversimplification of morality can be annoying for anybody with a properly complex view on morality and thus detrimental to the proper absorption into the story. Morality is not simple in reality. Morality falls into the category of philosophy as there is no provably correct answer to any situation involving moral decisions. Therefore, morality in reality is frequently 'in the gray' as there is no absolute good or evil. In addition, the perspective of good or evil depends on what side the individual is on. Those that we view as 'evil' frequently believe that they are doing good. This is another issue in many stories as many of the antagonistic characters frequently act 'evil' in a rather cheesy way and sometimes do not seem to strongly believe in their own cause. Given that morality cannot be determined, a story should optimally contain characters that make logical decisions based on their current context. Any conflicts between parties in the story are therefore understandable and each has their own backing logic. This is in sharp contrast to many stories that seem to have sides with extremely flimsy reasoning behind their actions. Each side of an intelligent conflict will have strong logic backing their points, and thus allow the audience to develop their own viewpoints and choose sides. This kind of debate not only helps the internal logic of a story, but it also enhances the intellectual enjoyment derived from the story. However, this may lead to the exclusion of part of the audience in a 'happy ending'. If one side in a debate is chosen over another without the debate reaching a satisfying conclusion the result might feel premature. Therefore, a story could ensure that one side of a conflict has logical flaws to ensure a satisfying ending. Another way to mitigate the exclusion of part of the audience is a neutral ending. However, these kinds of endings frequently do not resolve enough and are weak in comparison to proper endings. A similar way to end a story with an intelligent conflict is to simply have external factors influence the victory of one side. These external factors bring about a conclusion that is logically agreeable while never choosing a side of the debate. One example of such an external factor is when one side of a war has more military power than the other, thus . However, many will still construe the victory of one side as a symbolic victory for their side of the debate. The best way to end a story with this kind of moral debate is to simply not end the conflict at all, rather to have a core storyline take place inside the conflict and resolve itself without resolving the conflict. Such a storyline can also examine the positives and negatives of both sides of the conflict. Note: not all stories need to have multiple 'sides' or protagonist and antagonist characters. A story can be simply about an idea, event, analysis of a deeper meaning, or the attempt to overcome a certain circumstance. Cause and foreshadowing Foreshadowing in in story means that previous events hint that a future event is going to occur in a certain way. This implies that some kind of logic points towards the future occurrence and provides reasoning as to why that event would occur in that way. In effect, foreshadowing is part of creating proper context in a story. All events in reality have reasons for their occurrence and as such, events in a story should have similar logical reasoning pointing to the occurrence of an event. This inclusion of foreshadowing ensures that the audience is aware of this reasoning. It is important to prove the logic behind events in a story so that mechanics are not flimsy and thus detrimental to the audience's immersion. However, similarly to the creation of proper context the inclusion of foreshadowing may slow the story. Therefore, given that foreshadowing is part of context it should be treated in the same way and built properly to ensure that all events in the story are optimally immersive. Effects and deconstruction All elements of a story do not only have causes, they also have effects. If an element is included in a story, the effects of that element should also be considered and taken into account. The exclusion of effects can lead to flaws and illogicality in the story and therefore is detrimental to the audience's immersion. A response to the disregard of the effects of certain elements in stories has led to deconstructive stories. These stories typically analyze the effects that a specific element would have in the context of the story's fictional world. However, a few deconstructive stories also suffer from cynical bias. All effects of an element's inclusion in a story should be considered. Archetypes and character development Archetypes can be thought of as the oversimplification of certain character traits and their cliche-like inclusion in many stories. It is also one of the leading issues with character depth in most stories. Instead of attempting to create a new set of reasoning and personality behind characters, several writers instead opt to choose from a pool of simplified traits and construct their characters from a combination of a minimal number of these traits. This leads to simplistic, inhuman, unrelatable, and repetitive characterization. This kind of characterization causes many characters to feel boring and non-empathizable and is thus detrimental to audience immersion. A proper character will be designed with all aspects of their life, culture, and personality factored into their decision making process. A properly designed character will therefore feel significantly deeper than the average character and will generate more audience empathy. Similarly, sympathetic characters frequently generate more audience empathy and thus improve immersion. A good character will feel human (or whatever race they are) immediately, showcasing depth and using proper subtle social cues. Further development of the character will reveal more complexity and give further reasoning behind their actions, thus furthering the audience's understanding and connection to that character. It is important that a character has proper reasoning and logic behind their reasoning, as character inconsistencies may break immersion. In a similar way to how plot is developed, the causes and effects of each point of the character's psychology must be present and must make logical sense. Some causes that form illogical character can also be included, so long as they are not contradictory. For example, a character can have bias or mental illness which causes them to act differently than a character without those factors. In total, characterization is complex and many stories fail at proper characterization, frequently using simplifications to avoid the complexity that proper characters introduce into the writing process. Given that the decisions that characters make also helps shape the plot, I believe that proper characterization is also plot related. However, I am against stories without major plot aside from characterization. In my point of view, characterization should be achieved inline with the plot, where the reactions and interactions between characters in various scenarios further develops the characters. Stories that attempt to separate plot from character development are transparent and feel stationary, separated or unnatural when focusing exclusively on character development. Escapism and exploitation (writing in progress) Subtlety Subtlety is important as it reduces transparency and thereby increases immersion. In an unsubtle story, events and meanings are so clearly displayed that the intentions of the story become obvious to the point of becoming transparent. This transparency can break the suspension of disbelief and thus hamper the audience's absorption. In addition, subtlety can act as a reward for those employing critical thinking as the perception of these subtleties acts as an intellectual 'payoff' and therefore increase enjoyment. Subtleties are also excellent at conveying deeper meanings and ideas without seeming pretentious or overblown. Capitalism in media and the lowest common denominator One of the major issues with media is the bias towards mass appeal rather than forming well constructed stories. In order to achieve mass appeal, many elements of storytelling are 'dumbed down' and biased towards 'entertainment' over other types of enjoyment so that the average person can enjoy it. Frequently, many will write to make money and thus attempt to appeal to the largest audience that they can by 'optimizing' for a general audience. Other times, there are organizations that will gauge the appeal of the work they put out and accept only that which will make them the most money. For example, many TV stations will not accept show or will cancel shows if they do not perceive that the show's ability to make money is good enough. The same can be said with many movies. This bias towards popularity is apparent in the 'pop' movement; a movement specializing in mass appeal by appealing to the lowest common denominator. However, sometimes media simplifies itself to the point that a significant amount of people realize that it is indeed garbage and move against it. This is apparent in many instances of media appealing to children or teenagers. This does not mean that all media appealing to those age groups is bad, as some stories have transcendental appeal and work on many different levels. However, the unfortunate truth is that most media is optimized for popularity and thus is simplistically constructed. As most of the world comes down to business, I do not see this changing soon. Another reason why things become popular is social optimization. Many people have the need to fit themselves into groups and thus be deemed socially acceptable. This leads to a conformity bias. It is important for each individual to logically analyze each piece of information they encounter rather than blindly believing or emulating everything they hear to better fit into a group. Groups will naturally form anyways, given that many people will still share similar personal opinions. It is important to opt for truth in information and therefore take a more skeptical and critical approach to incoming information. In addition, it is important for each individual to hold their own personal beliefs as, like in the case of character depth, it will make them a deeper and more interesting individual. I do not believe that social optimization is entirely bad, as like all things it is important to consider the consequences of any action you take. Socialization is important for both mental health and quality of life. Without others, life would be difficult (imaging living in the forest by yourself without any help). So while it is important to hold your own opinions, it is also important to know that in many situations following typical social conduct is the logical choice. For example: you should be nice to and listen to your boss at work since work is most likely your primary source of income. Another example: running naked through the streets while shouting gibberish and waving a katana around will get you arrested and most likely cause the loss of several friends and any future opportunities. Generally, it is a good idea to be nice to others, obey the law, and avoid seeming too strange. Biases and critical thinking (writing in progress) Confirmation bias/overcoming biases/the methodologies of critical thinking and skepticism Gut reaction vs. logical thought As we evolved, there was a constant need to make quick decisions to survive in many scenarios. As such, we developed a type of fast-path in our brain known as a 'gut reaction'. While less accurate than logical thought, it is much faster and thus improves our chances of survival. Given that the brain computes in parallel as it is composed of many neurons operating independently, both the gut reaction and the logical thought occur at the same time. When the gut reaction has finished processing, we are presented with the choice to either go with our gut reaction or pursue logical thought. In survival situations, we generally choose to go with our gut reaction. However, in most other situations we should select the logical thought as it is more accurate. In modern society, we do not frequently enter into survival critical scenarios and thus should opt to use our logical though more. We should strive for accuracy and depth of thought rather than blindly trusting our less accurate gut reaction. If we train our logical thought, we can also significantly increase its speed (although generally not up to the speed of a gut reaction) and accuracy. However, many still choose to follow their gut reactions in several cases. I believe that this is detrimental as this imprecision causes missteps. This is also why we should analyze media instead of blindly enjoying it. That analysis aids in our accuracy and helps to train our critical thinking and logical thought. Spoilers, tension, and audience participation Spoilers are a special class of unintentional sloppy exposition. Many dislike spoilers as they ruin the tension of the story. This is similar to the effects of sloppy exposition which informs the viewer unsubtly about a future occurrence. Tension is important for the reason that it creates anticipation and for the reason that it gives the audience a place to think about the events for themselves. When a future event is unknown, it creates a stress in most people. This in turn causes excitement as they theorize about and wait for what is next. This constant energy towards the event allows for two things: the enjoyment of released tension and the enhancement of emotional sensitivity at the point of the event. The release of tension or 'resolution' benefits enjoyment as it is a typical human reaction. The heightened emotional sensitivity is caused by the anticipation, as many assume that an event will be meaningful if they are unaware of it. These two factors cause a heightened enjoyment at the moment of tension release. However, many writers lack subtlety in the resolution of tension and frequently opt for illogical or overblown conclusions and thus can 'ruin' parts of a story. Given that audiences have come to expect large 'payoffs', this is the less acceptable reason for introducing tension into a story. The most acceptable reason to introduce tension into a story is that it allows the audience to exercise their critical thinking. This involves looking at the presented information and attempting to predict the future event using logical extension. In this case the 'payoff' is when the audience predicted correctly and experiences the satisfaction of being correct. If one is incorrect in their prediction, it serves as a reason to improve one's own critical thinking. This active encouragement of critical thinking leads to further development and thus many benefits. Not only does critical thinking aid accuracy, it also helps the perception (and therefore enjoyment) of subtleties and an improvement in problem solving. In addition, as tension implies a subtlety in foreshadowing it effectively disappears when strong enough critical thinking is applied; leaving only the payoff of a correct prediction. This encouragement of audience participation and theory creation also leads to group discussion and thus provides another facet of enjoyment. Exposition and action Exposition refers to the in-story explanation of context. This can be effective in a few scenarios, but is generally sloppy, unsubtle, and less enjoyable than alternative methods of context building. Frequently, exposition is ineffective as a methodology of context building due to the detachment it presents to the scenario at hand. Due to the human bias to react more strongly to things more related to the current context, any level of disassociation represents a loss in potential impact. As such, events which are observed or experienced evoke a stronger reaction than events which are explained. Since an empathizing audience is technically an 'observer' due to projection, having events occur directly in the story will generate a stronger emotional response from the audience than if the events were explained in dialogue or brief description. Therefore, exposition is suboptimal in writing as it results in a dampened reaction from the audience. Another issue with exposition is its tendency to break the suspension of disbelief. This occurs because of unsubtle execution such as unnecessary or out of context dialogue. In many cases, exposition through dialogue is transparent to the audience. It frequently involves characters acting illogically our out of character to explain parts of the story. Often, characters will state things which would be redundant to anybody living in the world of the story. In other instances, characters will forgo their typical characterization to explain events in a neutral and uncharacteristic tone. Further, in other scenarios characters will act unrealistically to achieve exposition. One example of this is when characters continue talking from where another character left off without changing voice or having a reason to do so. All of the aforementioned exposition techniques are sloppy, illogical, and detract from the story through the shattering of the suspension of disbelief. In total, whether it be due to emotional detachment or immersion suppression, exposition is a poor technique to build context. Characters vs. plot vs. setting? (writing in progress) All are important! Parody vs. satire (and humor in general) (writing in progress) Horror Unfortunately, many works within the horror genre fail to accomplish the intended effect that the genre was conceived to have. In other words, most horror stories simply are not scary. There are two major reasons behind this. The first reason is that most media in the horror genre fails to focus on the psychological and instead attempts to scare with extreme violence and an abundance of viscera. Neither violence nor viscera are scary, rather for many they are more within the realms of 'disgusting' rather than scary. The most effective way to scare the audience in a story is though psychological manipulation. Since fear is a psychological response to external stimuli, it can be studied and the scenarios and events most likely to cause fear can be deduced. A proper horror story will feature scenarios that maximize paranoia and highlight fears common to the majority of people. This is a process that many writers ignore and instead opt to include many ineffective tactics to induce audience fear. The repetition and proliferation of such tactics is the second reason that most horror media fails to be scary. One of the most effective methodologies to increase the effectiveness of horror is to ensure that it contains scenarios and events that are unpredictable. If something is expected, it loses the enhancement that the fear of the unknown provides and gives the audience time to prepare for the upcoming event. Also, given that a repeated element in most scenarios implies a cliche, the pervasive usage of these elements leads to a dampened emotional response and thus a decreased impact. Therefore, it is important for a horror story to be unexpected and novel rather than relying on overused cliches and motifs. We fear certain stimuli and scenarios for several reasons. However, one of the least mentioned reasons involves the evolution of our species. During the period of our evolution when we were more frequently threatened by our environment, those that had a fear reaction to certain stimuli had an advantage in terms of survival. Therefore, we evolved increasingly from those with these fears. While the fear of some of those stimuli might be impractical in modern society, the reaction still persists as an evolutionary artifact which once assisted in our survival. Plot continuity and arcs (writing in progress) An episodic series will lack the feeling of progression and thus leave the audience unfulfilled. However, if each 'episode' is written well enough, they can be taken as separate stories and thus enjoyability is retained (usually only works for a small number of 'episodes'). Verbosity and language Verbosity is related to the creation of proper context. A more verbose description can assist in creating a more vivid mental image and assist in the construction of deeper context. However, significant verbosity can damage the pacing of the story and detract from the story in whole. Attempting to communicate an idea in an overcomplicated manner introduces unnecessary aspects and increases redundancy, thus harming enjoyability and understandability. It is important to convey ideas and descriptions in a succinct but vivid manner so as to reduce complexity, misinterpretation, and linguistic overload. Therefore, it can be concluded that learning to write without unnecessarily ornate vocabulary and excessive description is beneficial to communication. Some words of extended length are useful however as they denote in a single word what would take a significant amount smaller words. Timelessness? The goal of any story should be to ensure enjoyability in both immersive and intellectual fashions regardless of time period or culture. If a story has strong enough internal logic any external circumstances should not matter beyond the ability to sympathize with certain aspects of the story. To restrict a story to a single time period or culture by exploiting aspects of that context is to incorporate cultural bias and thus restrict the effect the story might have. This does not mean that a story cannot be targeted towards a single time period or culture, as stories of this type can be effective for their subtleties and their analysis of the context in question. Targeting a specific audience can prevent over-generalization and increase effectiveness in certain scenarios. However, thinking from a universal perspective is important as it highlights common truths and exemplifies a realistic point of view. Translation and its effects on context (writing in progress) A translation might not flow as intended and most of the time removes elements. Plus, the cultural context and that implied knowledge may not be present to audiences of different cultures and languages. Also, wordplay and some literary craft is hard to translate. ... Do not assume that my list is the pinnacle of objectivity. Like everyone else I will be biased in certain scenarios. In addition, I do not believe that I am an 'optimal critic' where I can perceive every subtlety and error in a story. Also, just because I rated something as being bad doesn't mean that others should not enjoy it. Everyone should choose what they enjoy as it is their own time that they are attempting to fill. I actively watch anime with two people who admit to sometimes enjoying garbage shows. |
All Comments (0) Comments