ZephSilver's Blog

Back to ZephSilver's Blog

Properly gauging a show makes the enjoyment of them that much better, as successful ones become more rewarding as a result and for the ones that falter, the very act of dissecting it can become a source of entertainment within itself; as it opens up the doors to engage in discourse with others, learning more about the various aspects that led to the final product, and perhaps even being able to recontextualize it in a new light. There's a level of entertainment from understanding the minor facets that make up a title, so in that sense, you're not only getting enjoyment from simply watching it (something that many viewers stop at) but you're also getting enjoyment from analyzing it as well. If viewing content results in 50% of the entertainment value that could come from a title, then analyzing it would be the next 50%, as you unearth hidden subtext, discuss your feelings with others, learn of the various origins of motifs, see the inner mechanics that may have led to certain good or bad decisions in the final product, and the list goes on and on.

Essentially, it's the difference between watching someone play a video game and playing the video game yourself.

The misconception that many people have is that "critical thinkers don't have fun." You've seen the comments before, "why are you watching anime if you don't like it?" in more words or less. When in reality, it's the exact opposite. Critical thinkers might be the ones having the most fun, as even content that we may dislike/find boring could then be channeled into its own form of entertainment from the mere act of performing an autopsy on it.

So regardless of the individual quality of the show, I can always find entertainment from it.

With that being said, enjoyment and quality-control are not synonymous.

Use this analogy to help:

I could enjoy eating a Big Mac, Outback Steakburger and Chicago's Acadia burger with the same amount of vigor, but if asked to place them in accordance with the quality each hold, claiming that a Big Mac was made with the same amount of craftsmanship as the Michelin-Star-rated Acadia burger would be absurd. And the same would also be true if I said Outback Steakburgers and Big Macs were equally the same because "they're both pieces of meat on a bun."
For the three burgers listed, there's a clear line of separation when it comes to their quality in terms of craftsmanship and time spent creating them.

So, if I was looking at these three burgers and trying to determine their quality-level through the use of numbers, the Big Mac might be a 3-4, the Outback Steakburger a 6-7, and the Michelin Star rated Acadia burger a 9 or 10. You see how that works? All three burgers could be enjoyable to consume but that doesn't mean they're all made with the same amount of care, effort, and craftsmanship. To say that they are is insulting, not to the lesser created product, but for those that treat food as more than just a priority on Maslow's Pyramid. To downplay Acadia's success by placing it on the same quality-scale as a BigMac would be to also downplay the people that bothered to go to culinary school, become a chef and pour their blood, sweat, and tears into creating something worthy enough to earn that coveted Michelin Star rating for their efforts.

Rating systems are not a matter of "hating" on something while praising another, it's a matter of paying respect for the individual effort at hand and holding things to a standard. I enjoy the medium enough not to inflate the value of shows undeserving of it, but sadly the misconception is that rating everything highly is how you prove your love for the medium. That kind philosophy only breeds complacency. It's that kind of philosophy that gives way to less effort and commitment towards the creation process, towards the artistic expression. Having restraint in awarding higher scores to shows that are truly deserving of them is the best way to give the utmost respect and love to the medium you enjoy. Not out of spite but out of adoration.

Tough love is honest love. To quote the character Terence Fletcher from Whiplash: There are no two words in the English language more harmful than "good job."

And that's definitely applicable when giving passes to half-baked artistic expressions that are conceited, yet are held as something "good" simply to fit consensus.

So take that reasoning and apply it to anime: someone may enjoy Tokyo Ghoul, Ajin, and Parasyte for the same reasons, given their similar subject matter and themes, but to claim that Tokyo Ghoul's screenplay was better than Ajin's would be a bit ridiculous. In the same way, someone claiming Ajin's visual presentation was equally on-par with that of Parasyte's would also be making an outlandish claim. They may all be in the same boat when depicting its subject matter but the pedigree in which each is written and presented cannot justifiably be stated to be one in the same.

There are distinct levels to their individual value, therefore, a degree of separation is needed to show that (ie scores). This is where your knowledge of literary devices, of narrative structure, of tropes, dumb buzzwords, motifs, symbology etc, will help go towards finding the proper separation between them. That's how you practice impartial analysis.
In the same way, chefs and nutritional experts could measure the nutritional value of the burgers by their calorie intake, protein levels, cooking time, quality of ingredients, individual textures and taste etc. Similarly, measuring a show's individual value can be determined byways of all the acquired knowledge as it relates to media.

You can enjoy that BigMac burger all you want, but at the end of the day, your enjoyment does not change discernable concerns.

People think it's all boiled down to subjectivity but there are aspects of every craft that remain signifiers of something's self-worth. And in the case of audiovisual storytelling like anime, movies or TV shows, that rule still applies.

So when I assign scores, it's not out of malice or pure bias, but rather, it's simply a means to help separate the degrees of success that I believe a title reaches when using impartial analysis. I could enjoy or hate many things but being able to come to terms with their actual level of quality is the difference between conceit and proper quality-control evaluation.

It's for that reason that I could have a lower rated show among my all-time favorites and higher rated ones not even making the list and not be concerned about it. Why I could put something like Argento Soma, a show I reviewed and rated a 7.5 in my top 10, while at the same time, Neon Genesis Evangelion, an anime I rated an 8.5, in my top 50 instead. I recognize their quality-level but that doesn't mean I have to abandon one over the other simply because of something arbitrary as a number. Scores don't matter, the art's ability to resonate with you does. Enjoyment and quality-control can be aligned but that doesn't make them one in the same.
My love for a poorly made, sloppy "burger" like a Big Mac does not grant it dominion over something that's made with far more finesse. Favorites and even shows you don't have interest for should be rated accordingly to their inherent value. And the more people come to terms with that, the closer they would come to properly rating a show for its individual merits, instead of the toxic, hyperbolic "the best/the worst" attitude that's exemplified on the internet.

All of this isn't to say that I don't have my bias for certain content, but rather, my bias does not negate problems or successes a show may have. My enjoyment and bias is a factor but is NEVER the only one.

Hopefully, you find this helpful.