Forum Settings
Forums

Why do some people believe in ''objectivity'' when it comes to story telling mediums ?

Pages (11) « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » ... Last »
Post New Reply
May 29, 2013 8:57 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1098
I guess not all people are idiots, thanks to the people who contributed to this topic.
 
May 29, 2013 10:16 AM
Offline
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 407
OP reeks of BS
 
May 29, 2013 10:22 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1098
Pandarenboy said:
OP reeks of BS

Explain why .-.
 
May 29, 2013 10:55 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1081
One can objectively speak of a series being coherent and consistent or not.

What one cannot do is objectively say that a show is good, bad, enjoyable, not enjoyable, etc.
Salmon is delicious.
 
May 29, 2013 6:20 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2272
I'm not sure whether I should take the OP seriously or not.
 
May 29, 2013 7:10 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2484
It is possible to be objective and critical of work otherwise a show such as Mars of Destruction could be seen as equal to say Ghost In The Shell in story writing, and anyone who sides with latter is clearly insane or trolling. Bad writing is bad writing after all.
Plot holes, bad characterization, having an incoherent plot they can all be faults objectively , the subjective part of it is whether you found any of those faults actually effect your enjoyment, if you even found the faults at all.

I guess a simpler example would be say if I wrote a fanfic about a show (let's say idk Lord of The Rings) with about 400 words, I have multiple spelling mistakes, I create a cliche mary sue, and the story has no real conclusion. Now you can compare to the original source material. Now can you honestly say that you can't objectively say that the LoTR by J RR Tolkien is better than my fanfic.
 
May 30, 2013 2:34 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1098
ElPysCongroo said:
It is possible to be objective and critical of work otherwise a show such as Mars of Destruction could be seen as equal to say Ghost In The Shell in story writing, and anyone who sides with latter is clearly insane or trolling. Bad writing is bad writing after all.
Plot holes, bad characterization, having an incoherent plot they can all be faults objectively , the subjective part of it is whether you found any of those faults actually effect your enjoyment, if you even found the faults at all.

I guess a simpler example would be say if I wrote a fanfic about a show (let's say idk Lord of The Rings) with about 400 words, I have multiple spelling mistakes, I create a cliche mary sue, and the story has no real conclusion. Now you can compare to the original source material. Now can you honestly say that you can't objectively say that the LoTR by J RR Tolkien is better than my fanfic.

Look like you never read anything in this topic and just recycled something that has already been said, there is no such thing a objectively good writing only subjectively agreed upon good writing. I will say that LoTR is better than your fanfic but it's still my subjective opinion. Read this but I doubt you will.
 
May 30, 2013 3:10 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1585
It depends entirely on what one is rating. Creativity is objective.

My story:
The cat ate a piece of bread. The end.

My story is clearly not as creative as LoTR. Tolkien invented languages, built a detailed world filled with diverse and detailed cultures full of detailed histories. He had multiple characters with different personalities and diverging interests. Further, his story was very original in type. There were few, if any, fantasy epics like his before he wrote LoTR. His story took more creative effort than mine did. It would be an objectively true statement to say that LoTR was more creative than my story.

Influence is objective. The works of William Shakespeare are more influential than the works of another well-known English play-write: W.S Gilbert. The collected works of William Shakespeare have influenced the development of the English language and the medium of story-telling more than Gilbert's plays have. It would be objectively true to say that Shakespeare was a more influential writer than Gilbert.

Grammar is objective. iF I's be riTing mai story5 'lyk" dis.?!, than my grammar is objectively worse than another writer who follows the rules of the language he/she is writing in.

Enjoyment is not objective. One person can enjoy something that is not influential at all, breaks all the rules of grammar, and is not creative more than something that is greatly influential, follows all the rules of grammar, and is extremely creative. Enjoyment is entirely dependent upon the personal opinion of the beholder.

Many of the things we rate stories on can be called objective. Characterization is relatively objective. Some characters are more realistic, go through more logical development, and are deeper than others. Generally, characters which are one-dimensional, do not go through logical development, and are in no way realistic can be considered to be examples of objectively bad characterization. Not always, because the purpose of characterization can vary, but usually this is so.

Semantics aside, objectivity in art is possible; just somewhat useless.
Let's go bowling.
 
May 30, 2013 3:19 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1098
StopDropAndBowl said:
Grammar is objective. iF I's be riTing mai story5 'lyk" dis.?!, than my grammar is objectively worse than another writer who follows the rules of the language he/she is writing in.

The only part were you are actually right and it's not even relevant. The rest of your post is terrible not gonna even bother explaining to you how dumb it is.
 
May 30, 2013 3:25 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 22952
OP....this is a super rare occasion when I agree with what you're saying.
 
May 30, 2013 3:29 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 14597
So ... You don't like the fact that someone elitist called an anime shit veiling his own opinions as "objective" so then make a thread in which you force your opinion that claiming any type of objectivity in terms of anime (which since this uses the same logic also encompasses literature and art) is retarded ... Seems legit.

Also would like to point out that the anime community has sort of loosely defined what a "good" anime is, by using an objective view on an anime you can objectively declare what an anime does (i.e. "That anime had no character depth since they were robots that spoke in a purely monotone voice throughout, and not once stated any type of emotion or desire"), then by objectively looking at the facts about what an anime does or does not do one can assume that the anime is either "good" or "bad" based loosely on what the majority of the anime community has deemed as "good" or "bad" ... Though the weight put on certain "categories" is subjective ... So ...

But if this is at all wrong then I want to conclude by trolling and saying Boku no Pico es numero uno, huehuehuehuehuehuehuehue
 
May 30, 2013 3:34 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1062
Objective is not the right word to use for what some people try to do when discussing mediums of entertainment. You can't have an objective opinion, but you can try to explain your opinion by looking at certain objective facts and deciding how much you subjectively value each.

This is the most any sensible person would do, and they might refer to it as "objective" even though it's not. Unfortunately there are a few people who do this and believe that because they're forming an "objective" opinion, it automatically means whatever they say is right.

So no, you can't form an objective opinion. But that doesn't mean there's no point in considering the objective facts about anime when you're discussing your opinion. It's certainly not a bad thing to know in detail what you value in entertainment.
 
May 30, 2013 3:41 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 22952
Anyways, I personally believe that it's very hard if not impossible to say what is good and bad when it comes to something such as anime.

To Shounen fans, Bleach, Naruto and OP might be considered the top 3 anime ever.

And even if I disagreed with such an assertion, it would be pretty hard to counter them seeing as they have a biased view when it comes to this particular genre.

Conversely, it would be hard to convince people who don't like Shounen battle anime why it's good.


That's why I believe that the MAL ratings are indeed accurate.

Everyone votes, and everyone's opinions are heard.

Does that mean that FMA Brotherhood really is the BEST anime ever?

No.

It means, this is the anime that has received the best rating among our members.

That's all there is to it.
 
May 30, 2013 3:43 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 802
Pirating_Ninja said:



read what Popka said, or what some others (including me) said on the other pages.

Maybe OP isn't the best with his words, but what he is trying to point out is that just because of bunch of people decided what is good or bad, doesn't mean everyone has to accept that as law and apply to any form of entertainment.

That being said, I do value informed opinions higher than uninformed ones.

Like if someone makes a review for Naruto and gives it a 10/10, I check what else he has seen and what he rated that.

Three things can happen:

1) He is a troll
2) He is a narutard who hasn't seen anything else in his life besides a handful of anime, and he was born somewhere in the 90s (so he is <20 years old aka teenager) and thus he has no idea what he is talking about
or
3) He (or she) legitimately believes Naruto to be a master piece, enjoying every single moment of it (fillers, shitty animation, meh openings and endings, one-dimensional characters and all over the place plot).
I am falling, I am fading, I am drowning, help me to breathe.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXwerVFCY-50PTBnedey1PQ
 
May 30, 2013 3:44 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1098
Well not gonna give a serious reply to a certain tool in this thread because his post is just a flame bait, Ha!.
Popka said:
Objective is not the right word to use for what some people try to do when discussing mediums of entertainment. You can't have an objective opinion, but you can try to explain your opinion by looking at certain objective facts and deciding how much you subjectively value each.

This is the most any sensible person would do, and they might refer to it as "objective" even though it's not. Unfortunately there are a few people who do this and believe that because they're forming an "objective" opinion, it automatically means whatever they say is right.

So no, you can't form an objective opinion. But that doesn't mean there's no point in considering the objective facts about anime when you're discussing your opinion. It's certainly not a bad thing to know in detail what you value in entertainment.

Yes it is only a bad thing when they do what I marked in bold. Giving an informed critical opinion is always better then a vague opinion like ( I luv this anime cuz it's epic and itz teh best anime out there) but still I see it as arrogance and ignorance to say it is objective.
 
May 30, 2013 7:22 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 2661
JustALEX said:
Anyways, I personally believe that it's very hard if not impossible to say what is good and bad when it comes to something such as anime.

To Shounen fans, Bleach, Naruto and OP might be considered the top 3 anime ever.

And even if I disagreed with such an assertion, it would be pretty hard to counter them seeing as they have a biased view when it comes to this particular genre.

Conversely, it would be hard to convince people who don't like Shounen battle anime why it's good.


That's why I believe that the MAL ratings are indeed accurate.

Everyone votes, and everyone's opinions are heard.

Does that mean that FMA Brotherhood really is the BEST anime ever?

No.

It means, this is the anime that has received the best rating among our members.

That's all there is to it.


and i just want to say, this topic is golden! :D
 
May 30, 2013 8:09 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 874
Because if you say that your opinion is objective one you will feel like you are always right even if your opinion is in minority or if it is total nonsense.
The real world is past the virtual world is future.



 
May 30, 2013 12:42 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1585
Arararraragi-kun said:
StopDropAndBowl said:
Grammar is objective. iF I's be riTing mai story5 'lyk" dis.?!, than my grammar is objectively worse than another writer who follows the rules of the language he/she is writing in.

The only part were you are actually right and it's not even relevant. The rest of your post is terrible not gonna even bother explaining to you how dumb it is.

That's cute.
Let's go bowling.
 
May 30, 2013 2:00 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 15770
AnnoKano said:
Of course there are objective reasons why something can be bad, and you are probably more aware of them than you realise.

I am sure you will have encountered something in a story which you have seen many times previously, perhaps an overly familiar story line, which from the premise alone you can begin to predict how the plot is going to develop before you have even watched it. This is termed a 'cliche'. Now, why is this bad, objectively speaking?

Cliched writing does not present us with anything new, and instead copies that which has come before it. If you have never encountered the specific cliche before then it's not really a problem, however as you encounter it more and more, you become increasingly aware of it and it starts to be distracting, and eventually even irritating. If there is nothing about a piece which is original, and it does not excel in other areas then it is essentially worthless.

This is just a straightforward example though; I would also consider qualities like sentimentality, shock-value, sex appeal, deus ex-machina, among other things to be inferior qualities in a story.

Of course just because a story features these things does not necessarily mean it is worthless, and it certainly doesn't mean one cannot enjoy it. I have no pretense that something like Strike Witches is high art; just the pretense that it is an entertaining show to watch.


The idea that something being "new" is what makes something good is as false as it can get. Non cliche storyline isn't the major factor on how good something is. Presentation of the story and characters is. It can be the most overused story ever told but if it's awesomely presented and directed it can still be top shit.
Anyway i don't really know if you can really put objectivity in the contexts of an opinion about something artistic like an anime.
 
May 30, 2013 5:22 PM
Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3082
You know, I had written up a fairly large reply to this. Addressing points such as the

'writing can be objective because there is a generally accepted standard for what makes good writing' (Hint: Argumentum ad Populum)

But honestly, this whole argument can be decided by a simple experiment. Everyone who thinks they can be objective simply list out what you think makes a story objectively good.

If I, or anyone else, disagrees with any of those things being part of a good story, you are wrong and it is subjective. If it was objective, we couldn't exactly have different views on it now could we? It wouldn't be influenced by personal feelings, it just would be.

But seriously, 1+1 = 2 is objective. The sun is hot, and this helps humanity survive is objective. Saying 'story x is better than story y because it adheres to these standards(standards created by other humans) is subjective.
Worships Asparagus.
 
May 30, 2013 5:24 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 87
I get the feeling that many people are making the mistake that "objectivity" = "Facts" in reviewing anime. Objectivity, Subjectivity and Facts are all different things.

For example; Reviewer A is known for disliking, even hating Romance Anime. He gets the assignment to review a Romance Anime.

If the reviewer is subjective, he will rate the anime badly without given any (strong) arguments on why the anime is bad. The arguments are either flawed, non-existent or illlogical. The review is purely based on his biased view that Romance Anime are not interesting.

If the reviewer is objective, he will be able to provide strong arguments to support his claim on why the anime is bad. These arguments can then be found back by the reader in the anime itself. The reviewer can state that for example the build-up of the relation is flawed. At one scene the male and female just met each other but 1 minute later they suddenly have an intimate relationship without any explanation on how the relationship was formed.
In this case the Reviewer is objective despite disliking Romance Anime because he can provide solid arguments on why the anime is bad. Other people can look up these flaws in the anime and see that these arguments are indeed visible in the anime

or

The reviewer can also be objective if he is able to think "outisde of the box". If the reviewer knows what a good Romance Anime consists of and is able to Judge the anime on those criteria, he should be able to give the anime a good rating because the anime upholds those criteria. Or the other way around in case the anime does not uphold the criteria.
However, in this case the reviewer should also be possible to provide strong arguments on why the anime does or does not uphold the criteria.

Objectivity does not equal facts. Facts is knowledge that the major part of the general/academic public has accepted as being the "truth". For example, water boils at 100 Celcius degrees.
When an objective reviewer provides arguments on why a anime is good or bad, these arguments are not facts because the facts are not knowledge accepted by the general/acedemic public.

An objective reviewer is able to show on what grounds his conclusions are based on using solid arguments that can be found back or shown in the anime while a subjective reviewer is unable to do so (the arguments are flawed, non-existent or illogical)
Even though "objectivity" and "subjectivity" seem to be the same at the surface, there is a distinct difference between the two.
 
May 30, 2013 5:27 PM
Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3082
Darcsen said:
I get the feeling that many people are making the mistake that "objectivity" = "Facts" in reviewing anime. Objectivity, Subjectivity and Facts are all different things.

For example; Reviewer A is known for disliking, even hating Romance Anime. He gets the assignment to review a Romance Anime.

If the reviewer is subjective, he will rate the anime badly without given any (strong) arguments on why the anime is bad. The arguments are either flawed, non-existent or illlogical. The review is purely based on his biased view that Romance Anime are not interesting.

If the reviewer is objective, he will be able to provide strong arguments to support his claim on why the anime is bad. These arguments can then be found back in the anime itself. The reviewer can state that for example the build-up of the relation is flawed. At one scene the male and female just met each other but 1 minute later they suddenly have an intimate relationship without any explanation on how the relationship was formed.
In this case the Reviewer is objective despite disliking Romance Anime because he can provide solid arguments on why the anime is bad. Other people can look up these flaws in the anime and see that these arguments are indeed visible in the anime

or

The reviewer can also be objective if he is able to think "outisde of the box". If the reviewer knows what a good Romance Anime consists of and is able to Judge the anime on those criteria, he should be able to give the anime a good rating because the anime upholds those criteria. Or the other way around in case the anime does not uphold the criteria.
However, in this case the reviewer should also be possible to provide strong arguments on why the anime does or does not uphold the criteria.

Objectivity does not equal facts. Facts is knowledge that the major part of the general/academic public has accepted as being the "truth". For example, water boils at 100 Celcius degrees.
When an objective reviewer provides arguments on why a anime is good or bad, these arguments are not facts because the facts are not knowledge accepted by the general/acedemic public.

An objective reviewer is able to show on what grounds his conclusions are based on using solid arguments that can be found back or shown in the anime while a subjective reviewer is unable to do so (the arguments are flawed, non-existent or illogical)
Even though "objectivity" and "subjectivity" seem to be the same at the surface, there is a distinct difference between the two.


Do you realize that the definition of objective is

(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

So actually, when talking about being objective, you ARE in fact talking about facts?
Worships Asparagus.
 
May 30, 2013 5:29 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2614
Darcsen said:
I get the feeling that many people are making the mistake that "objectivity" = "Facts" in reviewing anime. Objectivity, Subjectivity and Facts are all different things.

For example; Reviewer A is known for disliking, even hating Romance Anime. He gets the assignment to review a Romance Anime.

If the reviewer is subjective, he will rate the anime badly without given any (strong) arguments on why the anime is bad. The arguments are either flawed, non-existent or illlogical. The review is purely based on his biased view that Romance Anime are not interesting.

If the reviewer is objective, he will be able to provide strong arguments to support his claim on why the anime is bad. These arguments can then be found back by the reader in the anime itself. The reviewer can state that for example the build-up of the relation is flawed. At one scene the male and female just met each other but 1 minute later they suddenly have an intimate relationship without any explanation on how the relationship was formed.
In this case the Reviewer is objective despite disliking Romance Anime because he can provide solid arguments on why the anime is bad. Other people can look up these flaws in the anime and see that these arguments are indeed visible in the anime

or

The reviewer can also be objective if he is able to think "outisde of the box". If the reviewer knows what a good Romance Anime consists of and is able to Judge the anime on those criteria, he should be able to give the anime a good rating because the anime upholds those criteria. Or the other way around in case the anime does not uphold the criteria.
However, in this case the reviewer should also be possible to provide strong arguments on why the anime does or does not uphold the criteria.

Objectivity does not equal facts. Facts is knowledge that the major part of the general/academic public has accepted as being the "truth". For example, water boils at 100 Celcius degrees.
When an objective reviewer provides arguments on why a anime is good or bad, these arguments are not facts because the facts are not knowledge accepted by the general/acedemic public.

An objective reviewer is able to show on what grounds his conclusions are based on using solid arguments that can be found back or shown in the anime while a subjective reviewer is unable to do so (the arguments are flawed, non-existent or illogical)
Even though "objectivity" and "subjectivity" seem to be the same at the surface, there is a distinct difference between the two.


This. This is how I've always viewed objectivity when it comes to story telling mediums. Putting aside bias (as much as possible) to form a fair assessment of whatever it is you're reviewing.


 
May 30, 2013 5:30 PM
Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3082
Shrabster said:
Darcsen said:
I get the feeling that many people are making the mistake that "objectivity" = "Facts" in reviewing anime. Objectivity, Subjectivity and Facts are all different things.

For example; Reviewer A is known for disliking, even hating Romance Anime. He gets the assignment to review a Romance Anime.

If the reviewer is subjective, he will rate the anime badly without given any (strong) arguments on why the anime is bad. The arguments are either flawed, non-existent or illlogical. The review is purely based on his biased view that Romance Anime are not interesting.

If the reviewer is objective, he will be able to provide strong arguments to support his claim on why the anime is bad. These arguments can then be found back by the reader in the anime itself. The reviewer can state that for example the build-up of the relation is flawed. At one scene the male and female just met each other but 1 minute later they suddenly have an intimate relationship without any explanation on how the relationship was formed.
In this case the Reviewer is objective despite disliking Romance Anime because he can provide solid arguments on why the anime is bad. Other people can look up these flaws in the anime and see that these arguments are indeed visible in the anime

or

The reviewer can also be objective if he is able to think "outisde of the box". If the reviewer knows what a good Romance Anime consists of and is able to Judge the anime on those criteria, he should be able to give the anime a good rating because the anime upholds those criteria. Or the other way around in case the anime does not uphold the criteria.
However, in this case the reviewer should also be possible to provide strong arguments on why the anime does or does not uphold the criteria.

Objectivity does not equal facts. Facts is knowledge that the major part of the general/academic public has accepted as being the "truth". For example, water boils at 100 Celcius degrees.
When an objective reviewer provides arguments on why a anime is good or bad, these arguments are not facts because the facts are not knowledge accepted by the general/acedemic public.

An objective reviewer is able to show on what grounds his conclusions are based on using solid arguments that can be found back or shown in the anime while a subjective reviewer is unable to do so (the arguments are flawed, non-existent or illogical)
Even though "objectivity" and "subjectivity" seem to be the same at the surface, there is a distinct difference between the two.


This. This is how I've always viewed objectivity when it comes to story telling mediums. Putting aside bias (as much as possible) to form a fair assessment of whatever it is you're reviewing.


Thats a good way to review, but its not actually being OBJECTIVE. Its just being a good reviewer..
Worships Asparagus.
 
May 30, 2013 5:47 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 87
miereneronaile said:
Shrabster said:
Darcsen said:
I get the feeling that many people are making the mistake that "objectivity" = "Facts" in reviewing anime. Objectivity, Subjectivity and Facts are all different things.

For example; Reviewer A is known for disliking, even hating Romance Anime. He gets the assignment to review a Romance Anime.

If the reviewer is subjective, he will rate the anime badly without given any (strong) arguments on why the anime is bad. The arguments are either flawed, non-existent or illlogical. The review is purely based on his biased view that Romance Anime are not interesting.

If the reviewer is objective, he will be able to provide strong arguments to support his claim on why the anime is bad. These arguments can then be found back by the reader in the anime itself. The reviewer can state that for example the build-up of the relation is flawed. At one scene the male and female just met each other but 1 minute later they suddenly have an intimate relationship without any explanation on how the relationship was formed.
In this case the Reviewer is objective despite disliking Romance Anime because he can provide solid arguments on why the anime is bad. Other people can look up these flaws in the anime and see that these arguments are indeed visible in the anime

or

The reviewer can also be objective if he is able to think "outisde of the box". If the reviewer knows what a good Romance Anime consists of and is able to Judge the anime on those criteria, he should be able to give the anime a good rating because the anime upholds those criteria. Or the other way around in case the anime does not uphold the criteria.
However, in this case the reviewer should also be possible to provide strong arguments on why the anime does or does not uphold the criteria.

Objectivity does not equal facts. Facts is knowledge that the major part of the general/academic public has accepted as being the "truth". For example, water boils at 100 Celcius degrees.
When an objective reviewer provides arguments on why a anime is good or bad, these arguments are not facts because the facts are not knowledge accepted by the general/acedemic public.

An objective reviewer is able to show on what grounds his conclusions are based on using solid arguments that can be found back or shown in the anime while a subjective reviewer is unable to do so (the arguments are flawed, non-existent or illogical)
Even though "objectivity" and "subjectivity" seem to be the same at the surface, there is a distinct difference between the two.


This. This is how I've always viewed objectivity when it comes to story telling mediums. Putting aside bias (as much as possible) to form a fair assessment of whatever it is you're reviewing.


Thats a good way to review, but its not actually being OBJECTIVE. Its just being a good reviewer..


As I said earlier, Objectivity does not equal facts in reviewing Anime. That's were you are making the mistake. Furthermore, being objective does not mean that you cannot have an opinion. Being objective means that you have a good supported opinion. You are able to provide a well-rounded/supported opinion despite your own biased perspective.
You are able to view the subject/anime from all perspectives and explain why, how and on what the opinion is based on. You are providing arguments to show why you concluded something, you are not providing facts. You cannot provide facts in an Anime review because there are no Anime facts accepted by the major part of the general/academic public. Thus, being "objective" in reviewing Anime means that you have to provide solid/strong arguments.

An subjective person is only able view the anime from one perspective, his/her own biased view. That person is therefore unable to provide strong arguments to support his/her biased opinion and is unable to view the anime from difffeent view points.
Modified by Darcsen, May 30, 2013 6:01 PM
 
May 30, 2013 6:02 PM
Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3082
Darcsen said:
miereneronaile said:
Shrabster said:
Darcsen said:
I get the feeling that many people are making the mistake that "objectivity" = "Facts" in reviewing anime. Objectivity, Subjectivity and Facts are all different things.

For example; Reviewer A is known for disliking, even hating Romance Anime. He gets the assignment to review a Romance Anime.

If the reviewer is subjective, he will rate the anime badly without given any (strong) arguments on why the anime is bad. The arguments are either flawed, non-existent or illlogical. The review is purely based on his biased view that Romance Anime are not interesting.

If the reviewer is objective, he will be able to provide strong arguments to support his claim on why the anime is bad. These arguments can then be found back by the reader in the anime itself. The reviewer can state that for example the build-up of the relation is flawed. At one scene the male and female just met each other but 1 minute later they suddenly have an intimate relationship without any explanation on how the relationship was formed.
In this case the Reviewer is objective despite disliking Romance Anime because he can provide solid arguments on why the anime is bad. Other people can look up these flaws in the anime and see that these arguments are indeed visible in the anime

or

The reviewer can also be objective if he is able to think "outisde of the box". If the reviewer knows what a good Romance Anime consists of and is able to Judge the anime on those criteria, he should be able to give the anime a good rating because the anime upholds those criteria. Or the other way around in case the anime does not uphold the criteria.
However, in this case the reviewer should also be possible to provide strong arguments on why the anime does or does not uphold the criteria.

Objectivity does not equal facts. Facts is knowledge that the major part of the general/academic public has accepted as being the "truth". For example, water boils at 100 Celcius degrees.
When an objective reviewer provides arguments on why a anime is good or bad, these arguments are not facts because the facts are not knowledge accepted by the general/acedemic public.

An objective reviewer is able to show on what grounds his conclusions are based on using solid arguments that can be found back or shown in the anime while a subjective reviewer is unable to do so (the arguments are flawed, non-existent or illogical)
Even though "objectivity" and "subjectivity" seem to be the same at the surface, there is a distinct difference between the two.


This. This is how I've always viewed objectivity when it comes to story telling mediums. Putting aside bias (as much as possible) to form a fair assessment of whatever it is you're reviewing.


Thats a good way to review, but its not actually being OBJECTIVE. Its just being a good reviewer..


As I said earlier, Objectivity does not equal facts in reviewing Anime. That's were you are making the mistake. Furthermore, being objective does not mean that you cannot have an opinion. Being objective means that you have a good supported opinion. You are able to provide a well-rounded/supported opinion despite your own biased perspective.
You are able to view the subject/anime from all perspectives and explain why and how opinion is based on. You are providing arguments to show why you concluded something, you are not providing facts.
An subjective person is only able view the anime from one perspective, his/her own biased view. That person is therefore unable to provide strong arguments to support his/her biased opinion and is unable to view the anime from difffeent view points.


Viewing something from a different point of view does not actually make an opinion objective. Part of the problem with what you are saying is that all standards used to judge anime were created by people, and there are different standards. The application of any of these standards is subjective.

You are describing what I consider good reviewing. I imagine most people consider what you are describing to be the best way to review something, actually. The thing is, while the person might be being 'objective' by looking at the story from a different perspective, THAT perspective is probably subjective as well.

Think about it, for a minute. What other perspective can they look at it from? Whatever perspective it may be, its influenced by human opinion.
Worships Asparagus.
 
May 30, 2013 11:33 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 826
Arararraragi-kun said:
An example of people like this is that reviewer Dracon-something, his reviews are the most subjective and biased things I have ever seen or heard in my life he constantly shits on ''fanboys'' yet he is exactly the same he only focus of the ''flaws'' of the show nothing more and nothing less. I actually don't want this to turn into flame and spam about him, I am just curious on everybody's opinion as to why some people believe in objectivity...


Indeed. For someone who dropped shinsekai yori because of a 5 second gay scene, he considers himself objective. One look at his tags and we can see there isn't much objectivity.
 
May 31, 2013 12:12 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1920
Pirating_Ninja said:
So ... You don't like the fact that someone elitist called an anime shit veiling his own opinions as "objective" so then make a thread in which you force your opinion that claiming any type of objectivity in terms of anime (which since this uses the same logic also encompasses literature and art) is retarded ... Seems legit.

Also would like to point out that the anime community has sort of loosely defined what a "good" anime is, by using an objective view on an anime you can objectively declare what an anime does (i.e. "That anime had no character depth since they were robots that spoke in a purely monotone voice throughout, and not once stated any type of emotion or desire"), then by objectively looking at the facts about what an anime does or does not do one can assume that the anime is either "good" or "bad" based loosely on what the majority of the anime community has deemed as "good" or "bad" ... Though the weight put on certain "categories" is subjective ... So ...

But if this is at all wrong then I want to conclude by trolling and saying Boku no Pico es numero uno, huehuehuehuehuehuehuehue


But can't they just call it CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, not objectivity. It's a fairly strong word for judging entertainment.
 
May 31, 2013 12:48 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 157
This discussion is more complicated than it needs to be, so I'll try to explain things as simply as possible.

Subjective review: Explaining things with emotions
Objective review: Explaining things with descriptions, observations, and facts.

Now reworded

Subjective review: Explaining things with something that doesn't exist
Objective review: Explaining things with something that does exist
"Reality is a story the minds tells itself. An artificial structure conjured into being by the calcium ion exchange of a million synaptic fringes"
 
May 31, 2013 12:50 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 19336
MantisShrimp said:
This discussion is more complicated than it needs to be, so I'll try to explain things as simply as possible.

Subjective review: Explaining things with emotions
Objective review: Explaining things with descriptions, observations, and facts.

Now reworded

Subjective review: Explaining things with something that doesn't exist
Objective review: Explaining things with something that does exist
What?

Emotions only don't exist if you're autistic.

Subjective review: review
Objective review: summary

There is no such thing as an objective review.
Modified by Red_Keys, May 31, 2013 1:13 AM
 
May 31, 2013 1:02 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 157
Red_Keys said:
MantisShrimp said:
This discussion is more complicated than it needs to be, so I'll try to explain things as simply as possible.

Subjective review: Explaining things with emotions
Objective review: Explaining things with descriptions, observations, and facts.

Now reworded

Subjective review: Explaining things with something that doesn't exist
Objective review: Explaining things with something that does exist
What?

Emotions only don't exist if you're autistic.

Subjective review: review
Objective review: summery

There is no such thing as an objective review.


Oh you are right, existence isn't the best word for this

How about this


Or this


Maybe this
"Reality is a story the minds tells itself. An artificial structure conjured into being by the calcium ion exchange of a million synaptic fringes"
 
May 31, 2013 1:12 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1098
^ you probably took the cake for the dumbest reply here mhmm. I think this topic has run it course no one is bringing anything new only bad recycled arguments...
 
May 31, 2013 4:53 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 802
Red_Keys said:
MantisShrimp said:
This discussion is more complicated than it needs to be, so I'll try to explain things as simply as possible.

Subjective review: Explaining things with emotions
Objective review: Explaining things with descriptions, observations, and facts.

Now reworded

Subjective review: Explaining things with something that doesn't exist
Objective review: Explaining things with something that does exist
What?

Emotions only don't exist if you're autistic.

Subjective review: review
Objective review: summary

There is no such thing as an objective review.


What arararraragi-kun said

Everything has been said, this last quote sums it up.

Objective "reviews" are indeed just summaries, while reviews are based on judgement, therefore subjective evaluations.
I am falling, I am fading, I am drowning, help me to breathe.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXwerVFCY-50PTBnedey1PQ
 
May 31, 2013 5:04 AM
Offline
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55
Relativity says that Twilight is just as good as Shakespeare. Both extremes are bunk.
 
May 31, 2013 7:06 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 802
Gorim said:
In a simpler meaning of the term, objectivity refers to the ability to judge fairly, without bias or external influence.


funny thing about this part is that you cannot judge without external influence haha, so it's impossible to be objective even in the simpler meaning.
I am falling, I am fading, I am drowning, help me to breathe.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXwerVFCY-50PTBnedey1PQ
 
May 31, 2013 7:10 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 10208
Another issue that we could treat is why having bias is considered negative when making a review. It shouldn't really affect the quality of the review.
 
May 31, 2013 7:53 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1585
The problem here is that the OP and those who agree with him are using semantic arguments, and they are not even getting the definitions right...

As long as one sets the criteria by which a piece of art is to be judged, one can usually judge it objectively by that criteria.
Let's go bowling.
 
May 31, 2013 8:22 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 874
StopDropAndBowl said:
The problem here is that the OP and those who agree with him are using semantic arguments, and they are not even getting the definitions right...

As long as one sets the criteria by which a piece of art is to be judged, one can usually judge it objectively by that criteria.


And who is going to set that criteria? Because if fun sets criteria by his own standards it is still just his opinion and not objective opinion.
The real world is past the virtual world is future.



 
May 31, 2013 8:29 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 10208
It's because it is a problem of semanthics. Because "objectivity" as a word is often wildly thrown in many opinions and the discussion is in the use of it.
 
May 31, 2013 9:06 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 802
StopDropAndBowl said:
The problem here is that the OP and those who agree with him are using semantic arguments, and they are not even getting the definitions right...

As long as one sets the criteria by which a piece of art is to be judged, one can usually judge it objectively by that criteria.


Yeah that's what I meant with "framework" but the framework or criteria is just as arbitrary as any other. There is no reason to take one over the other but personal preferences. Thus making it just as stated a million times before, subjective.

objectivity is about the inherent properties, and not the mind dependent observations of those properties which evaluate them.

Like the MAL logo is Blue, objective property of the logo.
The blue of the mal logo is good looking, subjective interpretation of the mind, even though it is based on an objective fact.

If I say "blue is a good color and everything that is blue is good" I set that framework or criteria and now I can judge the mal logo on that criteria, and indeed the logo is blue, therefore objectively good.

But now I ask you, who is using the semantics here?
the one who just declares by edict what is good and what not?
Or the ones who say that nothing is objectively good or bad?
I am falling, I am fading, I am drowning, help me to breathe.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXwerVFCY-50PTBnedey1PQ
 
Jun 1, 2013 3:46 PM
Offline
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2419
Arararraragi-kun said:
Honestly why ? there is no such thing a saying '' this anime is objectively better than that anime'' I don't understand that logic like at all and what pisses me off is how delusional these people are, they basically think if they put aside personal enjoyment out of their opinion on some anime then somehow their opinion becomes objective, like seriously how dumb is that?!

In their deluded mind this A/ [ oh my god I luv dis animu cuz it's so epic and coolz ] is a subjective opinion meanwhile this B/ [ I disliked this anime because the characters are flat and one dimensional and the plot has a slow pace and the main character doesn't have proper character development and the writing through out the story is terrible and the OST didn't match the atmosphere of the anime ] is objective.

^That is completely wrong and just shows their flawed logic. The A example is just a subjective opinion that's isn't backed up with reasons he simply just loved the anime, The B example is also a subjective opinion but it has reasons behind his dislike.

An example of people like this is that reviewer Dracon-something, his reviews are the most subjective and biased things I have ever seen or heard in my life he constantly shits on ''fanboys'' yet he is exactly the same he only focus of the ''flaws'' of the show nothing more and nothing less. I actually don't want this to turn into flame and spam about him, I am just curious on everybody's opinion as to why some people believe in objectivity...

Do they want to feel special and somehow superior?
Are they doing it sarcastically ?
What is your view on objectivity vs subjectivity ?

adjective

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.


I fucking love you. If you were a chick, I would propose marriage.

There is no such thing as an objective opinion when regarding anime. NONE, NONE, one more time. NONE. All anime ratings are SUBJECTIVE not objective. This is why anime watchers can be the most disgusting plebians to walk this Earth. They act as if one always > the other but always have invalid arguments that are always 100% subjectivity because it's the WATCHER'S opinion, not "objective facts."

Bottom Line: You have brain abnormalities if you believe anime is and should be taken objectively, even with lengthy troll hate posts.
 
Jun 1, 2013 4:02 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3653
i like this thread
f*** objectivity in anime
 
Jun 1, 2013 9:53 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1585
wukp said:
StopDropAndBowl said:
The problem here is that the OP and those who agree with him are using semantic arguments, and they are not even getting the definitions right...

As long as one sets the criteria by which a piece of art is to be judged, one can usually judge it objectively by that criteria.


And who is going to set that criteria? Because if fun sets criteria by his own standards it is still just his opinion and not objective opinion.

The criteria can be said to be subjective, but the judging based on that criteria can be objective.

If I say: what is funny is what makes me laugh. Then, I can objectively rate whether a show was funny or not. Did it make me laugh? Did it not?

That is an extreme example, but let's take another one: if the majority of people agree that good stories have to have logical development/eventualities, than the story can be judged to be good or bad objectively based on that criteria. Was the development logical, or was it nonsensical? Did the events follow a logical path from previous events? Even if we can argue over what constitutes logical, or if something was logical or not, the judgement can still be objective. If we find a common ground of agreement and then base it off of that, then within that framework we have objective measurements.

It would be silly to take seriously someone who says: "Good writing is illogical, is riddled with grammatical errors, is uncreative, and is filled with one-dimensional characters who have no logical development or depth." I would posit with some confidence that this opinion does not actually exist as a real opinion. Thus we can say that all people, to some degree, agree upon those being the traits of bad writing, or at least, not-good writing. Within the only reasonable and serious criteria being offered, we can then objectively judge the quality of writing, to some degree. The criteria is itself still subjective, but it allows for objectivity. Hence, the existence of objectivity in reviewing art is confirmed.

As for the other argument offered: the problem is not in making an argument of semantics, it is doing so while still misunderstanding/misrepresenting the definition of the word in question.
Let's go bowling.
 
Jun 1, 2013 10:24 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 157
I'm just glad you guys aren't the ones who wrote my history textbooks.
"Reality is a story the minds tells itself. An artificial structure conjured into being by the calcium ion exchange of a million synaptic fringes"
 
Jun 1, 2013 10:46 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 32174
Because elitism doesn´t work with subjectivity and elitism is fun.
Too Old To Die Young


Aesthetic value can be recognized or experienced, but it cannot be conveyed to those who are incapable of grasping its sensations and perceptions. To quarrel on its behalf is always a blunder.
 
Jun 1, 2013 11:27 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1139
There can be both, how much one enjoys an anime is completely subjective, however at their core anime can be considered a form of literature, especially those based on manga and novels. That being said there are rules for how to structure a story when writing it, and when an anime has underdeveloped characters, plot holes, too much filler, or lacks a resolution, or is poorly paced, or something like that, then one is able to objectively infer that said anime is bad.
 
Jun 2, 2013 8:34 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 630
The only thing that is a fact is: Objective ratings don't exist. Period. You can't proof that X anime is objectivity better than Y anime. All arguments about this are just OPINIONS and people tend to label your OPINIONS like facts, because, you know, "it's cool" to say here "blablabla I have a good taste and you have a bad taste. Your favorite animes are guilty pleasure blablabla".

Serious, this is bullshit.
Modified by bereta002, Jun 2, 2013 8:49 AM
 
Jun 2, 2013 8:43 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 26478
deadjames said:
There can be both, how much one enjoys an anime is completely subjective, however at their core anime can be considered a form of literature, especially those based on manga and novels. That being said there are rules for how to structure a story when writing it, and when an anime has underdeveloped characters, plot holes, too much filler, or lacks a resolution, or is poorly paced, or something like that, then one is able to objectively infer that said anime is bad.
Where are these rules written? Whether a character is underdeveloped or not is subjective, so are plot holes and how many plot holes does an anime have to have to be "objectively bad"? How much is too much filler? Sometimes a lack of resolution in the end is what the mangaka intended. At least 3 of your top 5 don't use all their material. The pace is also subjective.
 
Jun 2, 2013 9:07 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 2161
Of course everything human say is subjective and they don't need anything to back them up also apply to anime as you can see THE SUN IS BLUE.
 
Top
Pages (11) « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » ... Last »