E-Kon's video on Overthinking Anime, the value of actual critical analysis, and how (and why) one should avoid being an elitist while still being analytical.
The History of Robotech, Part One
Not Voltron, not Star Blazers, but Robotech, was THE anime that spurred Generation X's awareness of anime and spread the otaku subculture to the West.
It is pretty clear that the majority, if they spoke without passion and were fully articulate, would not accuse us of liking the wrong books, but of making such a fuss about any books at all. We treat as a main ingredient in our well-being something which to them is marginal. Hence to say simply that they like one thing and we another is to leave out nearly the whole of the facts. If like is the correct word for what they do to books, some other word must be found for what we do. Or, conversely, if we like our kind of book we must not say that they like any book. If the few have 'good taste', then we may have to say that no such thing as 'bad taste' exists: for the inclination which the many have to their sort of reading is not the same thing and, if the word were univocally used, would not be called taste at all.
-- C.S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism
--RATING SYSTEM--
The descriptor is to be taken literally. I try to evaluate strictly, with attempts to minimize personal bias as much as possible and judge the work on its own merits.
CAVEATS: No I am not unbiased. Yes I believe in objectivity--no, it's not the same as "unbiased" and isn't part of this discussion. No I don't believe an unbiased state can be achieved BUT I believe it can be APPROACHED. Scores are subject to small adjustments over time and do not necessarily reflect my personal feelings or opinions about the show, even though those will inevitably impact my scores.
Please, do not bother arguing scores--these are a gauge for my overall impressions of the work's value and I TRY to be as unbiased as I can. I am often rethinking my scores and tweaking them from time-to-time.
If you think trying to be unbiased as possible is 1) stupid, 2) pointless/unnecessary, 3) mental wankery, or 4) anything else negative and/or dismissive, then please keep it to yourself.
--RATINGS--
10--Masterpiece = Superlative. Sublime. Not necessarily faultless (for there is little that is faultless) but its merits, complexity, and depth so far outweigh them that it is catapulted to a sort of place where it MUST be canonized. Comparable to the works of such giants as Kubrick, Lang, Welles, Truffaut, Goddard, Ozu, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, etc. High art. Important Note:This grade is specifically reserved for shows that have stood the test of time. A recent show that is rated as a 9 may eventually be promoted to a 10 if it is still being watched, rewatched, and discussed in 10 years or so. A+
9--Great = Excellent. Able to stand the test of time. Deserving of a place in "the canon" of essential anime. Comparable to the best works of Lynch, Scott, Copolla, Spielberg, Scorsese, etc. Solid A Grade.
8--Very Good = What the label says. More ambitious than most works and really nails what it aims to accomplish. Better than just good. A-.
7--Good = What the label says. Not very ambitious. It achieves what it is trying to accomplish rather well. B+ to solid B.
6--Fine = What the label says. Worth watching. By-and-large fulfills its potential satisfactorily. "It does what it says on the tin." It doesn't entirely achieve what it is trying to accomplish but by-and-large succeeds well enough to stick out above the mediocre works. Good but nothing special. B- to C+.
5--Average = The mean. 0 standard deviation. Not bad. Worth watching. Not much substance but still engaging. Merits outweigh any flaws. Satisfying but not entirely noteworthy or very memorable. Solid C to C-.
4--Bad = Below average. Flaws are beginning to outweigh merits. Show may still be engaging depending on taste and tolerance for contrivances/inconsistent narratives/bad characterization/bad animation/overly formulaic and cookie-cutter plots/etc. If you like its genre, you may still like it. Either this work had potential but missed the mark or it is just very, very mediocre and boringly formulaic. It passes the "worth watching" test but there's better stuff out there. D+ to D-.
3--Very bad = Trainwreck of a narrative. Inconsistencies. Ineptitude at handling story, character, pacing, etc. Could still be instructive as an example of what NOT to do. It takes a special kind of personal taste (or alcohol) to make this engaging. Even fans of the genre will tend toward being disengaged. Disappointing because any potential it had is buried beneath all of the mistakes its creators made. MST 3K fodder. F.
2--Horrible = Complete and utter failure. The entire thing is a complete wreck. Almost impossible to watch without experiencing frustration, anger, or utter boredom. Insults the viewer's intelligence. F (as in 0).
1--Appalling = What the label says. Absolutely without any merit. Viewing this not only causes anger or frustration but also discomfort, emotional suffering, and distress--and NOT by design. I cannot think of many pieces of media this terrible but I am sure there are some out there.
Profile Pic from John Warry's Warfare in the Classical World.
List heading pic from Circle-A on deviant art, entitled Melee. Thanks to Manaban for the information.
What you say about Monogatari is of course true, but trust me, it's just the tip of the iceberg. You'll understand after watching Owarimonogatari season 2. But remember to watch in the release order. The... puns (?) only get more sophisticated as you go on, but they're not the reason why people consider the series a masterpiece. If I say anything more that'd be a spoiler so I'll just stop.
I think I read that VE review and also thought it was quite harsh, but the arguments made sense. My biggest gripe with the series are plotholes like Violet's arms (rest of the world is fairly realistic, and yet no one questions those scifi /steampunk limbs) or how absolutely beautiful everything looks (didn't the war end just recently? How do those cities look better than richiest places in the world today???).
Yes, you finally opened the rabbit hole that is the monogatari series! Man, you have some great stuff ahead of you, haha.
But Violet Evergarden? Sure, it's pretty and has some idea of what it wants to do, but from what I remember there are... more than a few plotholes in this show, to put it that way.
I don't see what would be so unwise about it. If just mentioning that one pirates shows would lead to trouble it would mean that privacy already completely died. I also never heard of someone getting in trouble for being just a user of those sites, so I feel just as safe saying that I pirate anime as I feel saying that I use emulators for old games.
Just in case, there are Gunbuster and Diebuster movies out there, don't watch them. They condense and cut the originals to half their original length, and the original length was already below 3 hours. You'd be basically watching half the anime, so just make sure to not do that.
I'll put in print that I pirated all anime I saw up to date and that I own only one dvd (that arrived just few days ago (and its Diebuster)). I mean, everything that I care about either isn't on legal sites period, or is but isn't AVALAIBLE due to licenses anyway. Hell, I wanted to buy a bluray or dvd of some Monogatari season but I can't even do that due to licenses. It's like... they can't even take my money when I'll gladly give it to them. And I understand WHY, but it's still pretty ridiculous.
Anyway, I'm glad that you PREFER watching legally and I hope you do the right thing when it comes Gunbuster and Diebuster. That is, seeing them before you die. Wink.
So you've seen Diebuster? Before Gunbuster? As for legality... I really don't get it, if it's not avalaible legally then why not just watch it on kissanime or wherever? I doubt any legal streaming service would care about Gunbuster.
So if I inderstand correctly, when it comes to dramatic structures, your friend advises to look at those structures on a case by case basis, that is, looking at an individual work's structure?
Aside for that, thanks a lot, I'll look up the things your friend abd you mentined.
-What point is there in knowing dramatic structures like "Three-act structure", "Jo-ha-kyū", "Kishōtenketsu" or "protasis, epitasis, and catastrophe"? What do they allow us to see? Don't get me wrong, it's not a question to defend or allow myself to be ignorant, rather I just can't really see much of a point in them when I see them as simply more specific versions of Freitag's pyramid, which by extension, makes them applicable to fewer works. Should we know them because of the cultural/historical element?
-Do you think nownovel.com is a worthwhile source of information about writing and plots?
What about anonymous authors? Or those who didn't have any interviews?
I'll ask a different question- what type of knowledge about the author is important? After all, interviews and biographies are completely different things.
What about those new ones? There a few manga I read where I just cannot find any information about the author aside for things like age, or blood group. Of the top of my head I can name Rojiura Brothers, Murcielago and Kuro. What then? Do we just learn about the author IF/WHEN it's possible?
"Christ, I feel like I'm the only goddamn person on Earth who is actually willing to learn from somebody else."
Hey, what about me, I'm learning from you as we speak! Sorry, I love puns.
I can't say I saw many people who argue in favor of objectivity to support their taste, but I suppose those people exist as well. I see why you can be tired of forums but reddit at least isn't that bad. I mean, the second the word "objectivity" is mentioned the discussions DO devolve pretty quickly, but as long as conversations don't go there, you can even find some actual deep insights. I'm mostly reminded of this post as an example https://www.reddit.com/r/FLCL/comments/3pkcfn/what_flcl_means_for_me/
Anyway, dropping this "objectivity" topic, there's something else I want to ask. Do you consider the knowledge about the creator to be important while analyzing their work, and if yes, why? I was recently thinking a lot on how to develop some point system like the one I told you about, and while trying to outline it, I understood why time period, culture and the intended audience aren't just important, but rather CRUCIAL to any deeper analysis. I also "got" Rothko and Picasso! Ok, not really, I still consider them to have very little value, but at least I now understand why they're remembered in the first place. So there was that, which felt like an epiphany, but still no matter how I would approach it, I couldn't see why knowing an artist's biography could be considered important. If anything, it feels like being biased in favor of artists who are already famous and learning about their lives is easy, while being harder on new artists who just started creating. After all, since no one knows about them, no one can look at their art with their lives in mind, so new artist seem to get the short end of the stick in this situation. So that's my question- is knowledge about the creator important, and if yes, why?
All Comments (204) Comments
I think I read that VE review and also thought it was quite harsh, but the arguments made sense. My biggest gripe with the series are plotholes like Violet's arms (rest of the world is fairly realistic, and yet no one questions those scifi /steampunk limbs) or how absolutely beautiful everything looks (didn't the war end just recently? How do those cities look better than richiest places in the world today???).
But Violet Evergarden? Sure, it's pretty and has some idea of what it wants to do, but from what I remember there are... more than a few plotholes in this show, to put it that way.
Just in case, there are Gunbuster and Diebuster movies out there, don't watch them. They condense and cut the originals to half their original length, and the original length was already below 3 hours. You'd be basically watching half the anime, so just make sure to not do that.
Speaking of anime piracy, have you seen these 2 videos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCYGWeSh378
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4nHOABMEns
Anyway, I'm glad that you PREFER watching legally and I hope you do the right thing when it comes Gunbuster and Diebuster. That is, seeing them before you die. Wink.
Holy camoly, that's salty. Something happened?
So if I inderstand correctly, when it comes to dramatic structures, your friend advises to look at those structures on a case by case basis, that is, looking at an individual work's structure?
Aside for that, thanks a lot, I'll look up the things your friend abd you mentined.
-What point is there in knowing dramatic structures like "Three-act structure", "Jo-ha-kyū", "Kishōtenketsu" or "protasis, epitasis, and catastrophe"? What do they allow us to see? Don't get me wrong, it's not a question to defend or allow myself to be ignorant, rather I just can't really see much of a point in them when I see them as simply more specific versions of Freitag's pyramid, which by extension, makes them applicable to fewer works. Should we know them because of the cultural/historical element?
-Do you think nownovel.com is a worthwhile source of information about writing and plots?
I'll ask a different question- what type of knowledge about the author is important? After all, interviews and biographies are completely different things.
What about those new ones? There a few manga I read where I just cannot find any information about the author aside for things like age, or blood group. Of the top of my head I can name Rojiura Brothers, Murcielago and Kuro. What then? Do we just learn about the author IF/WHEN it's possible?
Hey, what about me, I'm learning from you as we speak! Sorry, I love puns.
I can't say I saw many people who argue in favor of objectivity to support their taste, but I suppose those people exist as well. I see why you can be tired of forums but reddit at least isn't that bad. I mean, the second the word "objectivity" is mentioned the discussions DO devolve pretty quickly, but as long as conversations don't go there, you can even find some actual deep insights. I'm mostly reminded of this post as an example https://www.reddit.com/r/FLCL/comments/3pkcfn/what_flcl_means_for_me/
Anyway, dropping this "objectivity" topic, there's something else I want to ask. Do you consider the knowledge about the creator to be important while analyzing their work, and if yes, why? I was recently thinking a lot on how to develop some point system like the one I told you about, and while trying to outline it, I understood why time period, culture and the intended audience aren't just important, but rather CRUCIAL to any deeper analysis. I also "got" Rothko and Picasso! Ok, not really, I still consider them to have very little value, but at least I now understand why they're remembered in the first place. So there was that, which felt like an epiphany, but still no matter how I would approach it, I couldn't see why knowing an artist's biography could be considered important. If anything, it feels like being biased in favor of artists who are already famous and learning about their lives is easy, while being harder on new artists who just started creating. After all, since no one knows about them, no one can look at their art with their lives in mind, so new artist seem to get the short end of the stick in this situation. So that's my question- is knowledge about the creator important, and if yes, why?
https://www.reddit.com/r/anime/comments/9jvyoh/objective_quality_does_exist_in_anime/