Vasilivros's Profile


Anime Stats
Days: 16.7
Mean Score: 6.82
  • Total Entries197
  • Rewatched0
  • Episodes966
Anime History Last Anime Updates
Sora yori mo Tooi Basho
Sora yori mo Tooi Basho
Feb 19, 8:12 PM
Watching 3/13 · Scored -
Darling in the FranXX
Darling in the FranXX
Feb 11, 2:30 AM
Watching 5/24 · Scored -
Feb 3, 1:54 PM
Watching 2/5 · Scored -
Manga Stats
Days: 7.1
Mean Score: 5.71
  • Total Entries70
  • Reread0
  • Chapters947
  • Volumes141
Manga History Last Manga Updates
Iono-sama Fanatics
Iono-sama Fanatics
Feb 3, 2:01 PM
Reading 10/14 · Scored -
Feb 3, 2:01 PM
Reading 51/? · Scored 10
Feb 3, 2:00 PM
Reading 10/327 · Scored -


All Comments (90) Comments

Would you like to post a comment? Please login or sign up first!
Fvlminatvs Yesterday, 6:32 PM
You ask some very important questions.

First, I want to be clear on a few things. By saying it isn't good, I don't mean that it isn't engaging or enjoyable. I rated it as a 5, which means I perceive it to be average. In truth, the vast bulk of anime should probably fall around 4, 5, and 6, with 5s being the largest contingent. I think a lot of what I actively pursue watching, currently, is average or better. These shows are still engaging. Heck, I even think it is possible to enjoy and be engaged by 4's if they fall into a genre you absolutely love.

So, if we agree it isn't BAD, then we're in agreement.

Moving on...

"Most sensemaking response would be that yes, it needs to have a reason or meaning, having it is the point of art, not having it renders the text as meaningless, worthless. Your anwser, however, was that some art needs, and some doesn't, which in turn is in conflict with what Mark Twain wrote about stories needing to accomplish something and arrive somewhere, in other words, stories need to do something. And it was you who quoted that part of him, way back, while also being on the same topic as now."

I think you may have misunderstood me or I miscommunicated my point. If you could find where I said that some art doesn't need a point, and paste the quotation, perhaps I could better explain what I had meant. A lot of our conversation mentioned intended audience, author intention, etc. So, viscerally, I think that I agree that works of art HAVE a point (with the exception of dadaism--which is paradoxical because the pointlessness is actually the point), even if the author(s) is(are) unconscious of the point.

Indeed, on January 18th I wrote: "Everything is there for a reason, even if the author is unconscious of those reasons."

Sometimes that point is simply to entertain. However, art also is descriptive (and sometimes prescriptive) of a culture and society, thus even "mindless entertainment" has a psychological impact on the reader. It's input data that teaches our brains. Consider the whole "nakama power" trope popular in shonen anime and manga--it describes (and reinforces) the Japanese collectivist values to the reader.

"All those questions I asked you, and all that I've read about literary criticism comes from my interest in QUALITY of a text, and that alone."

And here is where we're going to start getting into murky territory because quality is very difficult to ascertain on an objective level--if not completely impossible. Psychology and neuroscience demonstrate that our minds inhabit a subjective realm, and even some philosophers, such as David Hume, shed serious doubts on our ability to perceive objective reality.

So, what happens is we can get to a sense of high quality from an intersubjective standpoint. Intersubjectivity is the overall perception of "thought communities," i.e. the collective agreement on, in this case, the quality of a piece of art. A thought community could be literary academics or it could be an entire society. Hence, Shakespeare is considered to be one of the greatest writers (if not THE greatest writer) in the English language. There's no way to demonstrate 100% objectively that he is. This is an intersubjective consensus but it probably isn't far from the truth.

Literary scholars and academics usually don't go about arguing over the quality of a text. Instead, what they do is select texts worth writing about and do so. In other words, they don't grade these texts or debate their value very often but eliminate "unworthy" candidates by simply ignoring them. That's why you will find far, far, far more analyses of Shakespeare throughout the past century than any old penny dreadful from Victorian England.

Indeed, if you look through all of the academic publications that analyze anime and manga, you'll find some of the most important works to include Akira, Ghost in the Shell, and Evangelion but not Go-Lion (Voltron in the States) or Crusher Joe. The reason for that is, though Go-Lion and Crusher Joe were engaging when they came out, they weren't particularly superlative.

"1. We should agree that art needs a reason for looking the way it does, that reason is what all analyses focus on after all. Why is something there, why did the creator did it, all of those questions look for reason and meaning, and later evaluate whether that meaning has been achieved or not, and if yes, how well. Isn't THAT how quality works?"

From one perspective, I think you're right. However, there are MULTIPLE perspectives and that's why you have those four main branches of critical theory--mimetic, rhetorical, etc.--that we discussed earlier. At this moment, I think I've realized that figuring out if a work of art is QUALITY often unconsciously becomes a group endeavor. You need an entire "thought community" that deliberately examines works from these multiple perspectives. The end result of the group's selections for analysis will tell you which shows are superlative and which are just "meh."

I suspect that if you looked at Re:Zero from many of these perspectives, the only one that would have any traction would be the rhetorical effect and even then that would show divisions among the viewers.

Also, keep in mind that MAL is full of hordes and hordes of people who unconsciously pursue rhetorical criticism (although there are a lot who make amateur attempts at formal criticism with mixed results). Thus, we're inundated with a single majority method and not a variety of disciplines and interpretive frameworks. It seems like in the past, MAL may have had a majority formalist method but the rhetoricists seem to have taken over the place since around 2011 or 2012.

"2. What makes Re:zero not good. Seriously, what does this show have or lack that make it low quality? I need a solid example of flaws, because without that how can I really undestand merits? Them simply being the opposite of each other makes sense but doesn't seem to be the case based on all our previous conversations."

Well, we can start with Subaru. Basic storytelling 101--the protagonist. What are his motivations? From what I can tell, he wants to get with Emilia... and that's about it. This is a problem insofar as he has no other motivations of his own but derives all of his other motivations from his ultimate goal of having a romantic relationship with Emilia. All of his motivations circle around Emilia, which demands the author demonstrate why she is worth all of the difficulty and hardship through which he puts himself. I've heard that in the Light Novel, she does... later. That's not good enough because by the time she DOES demonstrate this, he's ALREADY suffered more traumatic events than I can comprehend.

Emilia, being such a vastly important character, since our protagonist's motivations rest upon her entirely, is poorly fleshed out. Her own motivations are vague and poorly established. Does she want to be the next ruler or not? Why? What is in it for her?

In the end, Subaru goes through so much pain and suffering because of her that, were he a real person, he'd not only have post-traumatic stress disorder, he'd have done a basic cost-benefit analysis and abandoned his motivation of romancing her OR he'd become insanely obsessed with her. Neither happens.

What Subaru represents, however, is far more interesting. He is effectively no different than Kirito from Sword Art Online--a placeholder for the audience to insert themselves into this "wonderful fantasy adventure." It is tremendously easy to identify with him. His repeated deaths fail to do anything but show him how to navigate to the next checkpoint and any mental trauma he has suffered is wiped away within an episode or two. Indeed, he comes to trust Rem (even though I, admittedly, think she's adorable) even though she killed him non-chalantly based on suspicions and little else. It would be far, far more interesting if he had confronted her about it instead of, in his one moment of flimsy weakness he asked her to run away with him and they could have kids together. "Why don't you trust me?" "Because I'm no fool. When I first arrived, you were perfectly capable of killing me on the mere suspicion that I might be a threat to Emilia and it is only by chance that you never got around to doing it." THAT would have been dramatic, it would have pushed the story and the character interactions into new directions and thickened the plot a bit. Buuuuuut nope, this is a self-insert fantasy, here, and we need Rem LURVE him so she can be somebody the viewers can fap to while imaging they're Subaru.

Which brings me to the whole dying=loading the last checkpoint gimmick. This is the MAIN mechanic around which the entire story (and Subaru's character) centers. It could function similarly to how it did in ALL YOU NEED IS KILL--I never read that but the Western movie adaptation handled it far, far better Re:Zero.

All of Subaru's pain and suffering is only dealt with by the story temporarily. Most of us will only experience dying once--maybe twice if someone on hand is capable of resuscitation. Subaru experiences death more times than I can count in the first season alone and it leaves no PERMANENT damage to his psychological makeup. It is a disposable plot-device and never really ascends beyond that level. The author never uses Subaru's repeated deaths to examine the hypothetical costs of immortality (heck, even the HIGHLANDER movie series dealt with this better), explore the concept of death and its relationship to life, or anything truly meaningful.

From mimetic and expressive methods, Re:Zero becomes an absolutely fascinating look into the author and into Japanese otaku fandom in general (and by extension, fans of this series in particular). Since Subaru is an empty shell into which the reader (and author, most likely) are projecting themselves, we can examine Subaru's situation and begin to understand the appeal of the show. It is wish-fulfillment fantasy.

I often hear from young people (both in class, around campus, and here on MAL) that they want protagonists with whom they can identify. This is tremendously revealing and its implications are... well... not good. And I speak not only from experience as an instructor but as a kid myself--I identified a great deal with Shinji when I first saw Evangelion. I am quite happy to say, now, that I no longer do so and am quite aware of what an angsty little shit I was back then. HOWEVER, that doesn't make Shinji any less engaging and understandable a character.

I digress. Back to the topic at hand.

There is so much more I can say about Subaru. Heck, there's so much more I can say about Re:Zero. Honestly, though, I am afraid I'll be typing away, here, all night and I have exams to proctor tomorrow. I mean, I've really only just begun to explain, not so much why Re:Zero is BAD, but instead, why it fails to be GOOD. As I said before, I don't think it is BAD. I was engaged through the majority of it, even if a lot of the author's choices regarding story and character were disappointingly amateurish (which, this being a light novel adaptation, is to be expected).
Fvlminatvs Yesterday, 2:17 PM
Sorry about the delay in responding. It's mid-term season.

I'll be upfront and admit that it has been so long that I don't remember the artwork of the original comic that much. That also means its flaws didn't make that serious impression on me. Either way, though, if the anatomy is bad, it's bad. Nagai was pretty prolific and I think he was drawing and writing Harenchi Gakuen (and perhaps one other manga) when he started Devilman. He finished up Harenchi Gakuen after a few months, though, if my memory serves me correctly.

Either way, though, what's important about Devilman is its legacy and its status as a gamechanger. I know lots of people today don't care about something's legacy but I see that as chronological snobbery. Devilman, like Harenchi Gakuen, pushed manga's Overton window much wider. Nagai quite literally founded tropes and concepts that would become commonplace in manga and anime to the point where they would be considered genre features instead of cliche. For example, from Gundam to Evangelion to Gurren Lagann and beyond, Super Robot and Real Robot anime owe a major debt to Nagai's Mazinger Z for their very existence.

I think what caught on so strongly with Nagai were his ideas. Today they seem cliched and commonplace but the fact is that they wouldn't even exist if it hadn't been for Nagai. At the time they were entirely new--either wholly unique or out-of-the-blue twists on pre-existing concepts and techniques.
Fvlminatvs Feb 19, 11:30 AM
Sorry. I wrote that sentence in colloquial American English instead of a grammatically correct sentence.

What I mean is that manga art was quite often still very cartoonish. Both Osamu Tezuka and Go Nagai are considered pioneers in shaping the evolution of manga and its aesthetic style. Thus, I wouldn't say Go Nagai's art was "poor," but instead more of a product of its era.
Fvlminatvs Feb 16, 7:16 PM
Maybe. However, I don't think you're taking into account when the manga debuted: 1972. If you compare Go Nagai's art to contemporary manga art like, for example, the works of Osamu Tezuka, I don't think that the art style is "poor." It is a product of its time.

The nasty violence was incredibly groundbreaking and avant-garde for the time. Compare it to the sex and violence in 1970s Métal Hurlant magazine, started by Mœbius and Philippe Druillet (Heavy Metal magazine in English). Go Nagai was pushing into uncharted territory where extreme sexual content and extreme violence were almost forbidden. His one manga, Harenchi Gakuen, which ran from 1968 to 1972, was almost banned by the legal authorities because Parent-Teacher Associations were writing letters to the government demanding his work be censored.

It's been contemplated that Nagai's anger at the censorship advocates fueled his Devilman stories. I don't know how true that is.

Granted, by today's standards, Devilman's original manga story did not age well. That's why it is important to try to get your head into the mindset that existed when the work was first published. I approve of the changes made to the adaptation because manga and anime as media have grown and developed a more solid set of narrative and visual methods. The new show makes use of that but also subverts and attacks conventions (in narrative, in visuals, in content, and in social commentary) that have become traditional, quite in the spirit of Go Nagai's original work.
Fvlminatvs Feb 13, 2:52 PM
I liked Crybaby. I've read a bit of the manga and saw the old 1980s OVAs that were ultra-violent. I think they adapted the property to the current era quite well, actually. I was pretty impressed by a lot of the decisions they made. I don't know how far it diverges from the original manga.

Houseki no Kuni was actually quite interesting. Every event in the show revealed a bit more about the setting and deepened the mystery while also adding to the sense that something is happening and the situation is gradually intensifying. It is too early in the tale itself to really gauge any overall themes or anything like that but there's still a lot of neat-o stuff going on in the show. I was definitely engaged.
LIQfilms Feb 13, 12:14 PM
Fvlminatvs Feb 4, 7:33 AM
As for deep readings... well, that's what we do. Actually, I thought this stuff was pretty obvious but I can see how it isn't for most people. This doesn't mean that the show's writers and developers did this deliberately, either. Criticism and analysis can be highly interpretive and these symbols and metaphors may be products of the creators' subconscious minds.

Believe me, I'm not fan of cheap fanservice shows. If that's all Darling in the Franxx was, I'd not be waiting for the rest of it to air on Crunchyroll.

So far, Devilman Crybaby is pretty good.
Fvlminatvs Jan 28, 8:53 AM
"1. So, it would seem to me that the formal approach is the go to method, but not the only one when you try being objective. On the other hand pragmatic theory is essentially all about subjective feelings of someone towards a text. Right?"

You're not wrong but I think that's an oversimplification. Regardless, if that's your starting-line for understanding these theories, I think that's okay.

As for there being a go-to method, I would disagree about formalism. I think Rhetorical/Pragmatic theory is more or less what most people practice because that's what they're taught. A handful of people use (or try to use) Formal theory--to varying degrees. ThatAnimeSnob is one particular YouTuber that (consciously or unconsciously) uses Formal theory, whereas most other YouTubers are (again, consciously or unconsciously) adherents of Rhetorical/Pragmatic theory.

"2. I think you said, that while those theories focus on analysing written texts, text does not refer only to literarly TEXT, but art as a whole. Does that mean eg Abram's theories can be used when looking at drawings or music?"

Absolutely! Yes! This is absolutely true! When critical theorists use the term "text" it can refer to ANYTHING that can be consumed--not just art but even a paper published in a scientific journal. EVERYTHING is a text. EVERYTHING can be read and interpreted, critiqued, or analyzed.

"3. Having a hypothetical text, which tries to appear as a sophisticated piece of art for intelligent people, but is just primitive and easily understood by just about anyone, then its simplicity is a flaw, right? A situation like I described, nothing more, nothing less."

Yes in that it has failed to actually be as sophisticated as it intends to be.

"4. Intentionally made flaws. A flaw is a flaw, but does the fact its intentional change it, given that it (the flaw) doesn't add anything to a work? Something like as if you'd found out that the creator of Re;zero made it a mess on purpose. What does it change?"

This is an interesting question. If the creator of Re:Zero made it a mess on purpose, I could then ask, "why?" "What was his objective? Did he achieve it?"

Simply trying to make your work a mess doesn't do much. Jackson Polluck's art may look like a mess but there's a definite method to how he creates his art. He's thought about what he's doing and he has reasons behind it beyond making splashes of color on canvas. A lot of it has to do with texture, with color-combinations, and with creating a sort of emotional resonance.

Deliberate choice isn't enough to shift your work. You have to know why you are "breaking the rules" or deliberately lacking coherency. In reading a story like Kafka's "The Country Doctor," you'll start thinking, "this is absurd and weird" but Kafka chose to write stories that were surreal and absurd for very specific reasons and there are definitely patterns within his work that can help the reader figure out what he's trying to say and what questions he's asking.

Again, we have to go back to some of the old questions I mentioned a while ago. "Who is this written for? Why did the author do this? What is the purpose? Does it succeed or fail?"

If the author simply made a mess just to be different and that's it, the work's value is probably not going to stand out in a positive way. However, if the author made a mess in order to deliberately challenge his and our perceptions, perspectives, or understanding of some aspect of the work, perhaps that mess isn't a mess after all? I'm reminded of the French New Wave film BREATHLESS, which uses unique cuts and eschews traditional cinema storytelling techniques in favor of something different--not to just "be different," but to attempt to convey storytelling in a less direct manner and to try to change the viewer's perception of the passage of time.
Fvlminatvs Jan 26, 6:09 PM
Ooookay. Sorry for the delay getting back to you.

"1. How would you define a flaw and a merit?"
Oh, Jesus, this is a toughie. Also, keep in mind, I'm not an expert on this sort of critical theory and analysis. That's, perhaps, why I find some of these questions pretty challenging.

Alright, so, basically, how I see it is that merits are aspects of a show that are successful and flaws are unsuccessful. For example, if a show is well-paced, that is a merit; poorly paced is a flaw.

Keep in mind, again, that what is a flaw in one genre is a strength in another genre. In other words, if I am reading one of Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, I should expect rip-roaring bloodshed, horrible monsters, wicked sorcerers, and a relatively quickly-paced tale written with brevity and panache. However, that brevity and stylistic flare, while a strength in the sword-and-sorcery subgenre of fantasy, wouldn't work as well in a Tolkienesque high fantasy story, which is more drawn from early medieval stories and later Renaissance-era chivalric romance.

"2. I want to ask again about complexity and inconsistencies being good and bad respectively. In your descriptions of scores you do mention them alongside high and low scores so..."
Complexity is good IF DONE WELL. You can have shows that are needlessly complex to the point where they become totally convoluted. Some shows are complex for the sake of being complex and not to explore any real thematic questions or arguments. This is my criticism of the GAME OF THRONES series, in which the complexity, while addictive, ultimately ends up retreading the same old thematic ground without really advancing it or adding anything new. What I mean by that is that GAME OF THRONES takes the soap-opera model of multiple characters and multiple plot threads that constantly interweave so as to create the impression of complexity but ultimately it doesn't do much more with its core themes than it did in the first one or two books.

"I do get that (for example) a story for children that's supposed to teach morals can't be too complex, otherwise it'd fail at what it's doing, but even assuming it was executed perfectly it would still be just... ok, right? It wouldn't be amazing is what I mean, because its simplicity would hold it back, and anyone older would notice that right away."

Well, that's where your sophistication is kicking in. A children's story will come off as unsophisticated. You can read it and say, "well, duh," because the moral lesson is obvious. It may even come off as condescendingly didactic, in fact. But that's where you must consider audience. Since I'm not an expert in children's literature, I would suggest that any of the shows I rated that I watched as a kid ("Meiken Jolie," for example) are rated based on the overall impression I had for the show back then.

Similarly, when I first saw Neon Genesis Evangelion, I was not sophisticated enough to really comprehend everything going on. Sure I got a lot of it because I was 18 or 19 and well-read. When I hit about 25, though, I started to think it was overrated. However, it wasn't until I started reading more about Freudian and Jungian psychology for grad-school seminars, as well as learning about the language of cinema and techniques of film that I REALLY started to comprehend just how ingenious Evangelion really was. I wasn't sophisticated enough to appreciate it.

So, sophistication goes both ways. You can quite literally be too sophisticated to appreciate something fully. Your sophistication can also be a curse--I loved Terry Brooks' Shannara novels as a middle-schooler but now I find them so banal as to be unreadable, and not even nostalgia can redeem them.

Keep this in mind, too--YOU will change. You will continue to mature. Your tastes will evolve and change as well. You are not a static entity. No human is.

"3. How does Abrams' theory work? I read up on it, but I still don't understand how you'd use it. My idea is that either you choose one of the four ways of looking and stick to that, or take all four and think of average of them. Example: internal consistency (relation of work to itself) is top notch, everything is done amazingly but it completely disregards any laws of physics or other IRL logic (relation of work to world), so on average (10/10 and 0/10) it would be "ok". Does that make any sense? Or none at all?"

A lot of people do that, actually. The New Criticism and Reader-Response Criticism were both diametrically and philosophically opposed to one-another. Hell, Reader-Response absolutely embraces the innately subjective interpretations of any reader or viewer. All interpretations are valid--it's just that some are more sophisticated than others.

I don't. Well, not consciously. I think I start out using Formalism with any work but I also listen to my own emotions. There are shows that I have been (and still am) highly amused by but from a Formalist standpoint, they've got serious issues.

None of us are really capable of truly executing Formalism but I think it is still worth trying.

Get a copy of Steven Lynn's TEXTS AND CONTEXTS off of Amazon. Hopefully you won't have to import it and I don't know if it's been translated into your native language. You seem to read and write English well enough, though, so if you have to import a copy you should be able to read it without too much trouble.

I suggest this because Lynn actually gives a lot of advice on how to use some of these different analytical methodologies (mostly mid-to-late 20th century ones).

"4. Who does the "audience" in pragmatic theory refers to? Individual or all people who saw given work?"

Pragmatic (aka Rhetorical) Theory is any individual reading the work. So, in this case, YOU. Reader-Response Criticism is one of the most prevalent methodologies for this class of theory. In fact, they passively (and probably unconsciously) teach it in American schools. TEXTS AND CONTEXTS has a whole chapter on how to do Reader-Response Criticism. It's all about your interpretation.

"The most important is the first question, because after all the comments we exchanged I'm now totally lost with what's what. My gut still kinda guides me (eva's good, re;zero not so much) but as to why... that's harder. Also, I don't trust my gut, so help."

Well, frankly, questions of good and bad only matter on a surface level to Rhetorical and Expressive Theories, and probably to Mimetic and Formal theories as well. You won't find a lot of scholarly articles examining works considered "bad."

One way to look at it is to tackle each individual theory set one-by-one. Learn a few methods on how to do it then give some of them a try. Read books about literary criticism and literary theory. Read a bit about film theory. Take your time. You're in no rush.

Don't doubt yourself too much. Your gut is a fine place to start, even if it isn't the only organ you want to use. Also consider your reasons for watching something. If you are watching something just to be "entertained," then some things might work for you that wouldn't if you wanted to be engaged on a more intellectual level. As much as I love Ingmar Bergman's THE SEVENTH SEAL, most of the time, I'm not in the mood or mindset to watch it.

Also, keep in mind that scholars can widely disagree on texts a lot. Where Harold Bloom may consider a novel worthy of a place in "The Western Canon," another scholar might totally disagree.
MintzZz Jan 24, 11:54 PM
Oh, c'mon, not you too!

At one point, I tried to be as objective as possible, but I felt that the ratings don't accurately reflect what I really think and feel about the series. I use to rate things like Evangelion and Mononoke rated higher, stuff like Yuru Yuri and Anohana lower, because of what I perceived as merits or faults, how things ought to be rated, but that didn't seem right because I didn't enjoy the former much while I loved the latter. I do understand where you're coming from, and I can definitely relate to your point about K-On except the target of my hatred is Mahou Shoujo Ikusei Keikaku. Now that's what I call an insult to the audiences' intelligence!
Fvlminatvs Jan 24, 6:14 PM
I'll get around to replying to this. Sorry I've not gotten to it yet.
Max Jan 24, 6:06 PM
I noticed you on MintzZz’z profile and just wanted to say hi. Your tastes seem a lot similar to mine when I first started watching anime, which I don’t mean to sound condescending at all; it brings back good and pleasant memories.

If you like action-drama anime, and it seems you do, you should check out Fate/Zero. It and Madoka have the same writer—Gen Urobuchi (‘Urobutcher’ to Western fans since he kills off a lot of characters)—and the animation is pretty good as well. It’s not my personal favourite, but we have slightly different tastes, so I based it off your other preferences. Let me know should you end up watching it.
MintzZz Jan 23, 8:27 PM
You're really putting the pressure on me... I feel like I'm about to introduce my girlfriend to my parents or something like that. >__> That being said, I do hope that you enjoy it since I believe Hanamonogatari is Nisio Isin at his best in terms of character writing and thematic content.

My ratings are based on my own enjoyment and how attached I am towards the work in question, which can either be emotional or simply fascination. I really want to emphasize how much I love certain series, rather than how much I dislike other series which is why I try to maintain a low number of entries being rated 8 or higher. The more something means to me, the higher its rating. For example, Wolf Children, which I gave an 8, received that score because I can relate a lot to the ordeals the characters go through and I felt all sorts of emotions throughout its run. Ergo Proxy, also rated 8, really intrigued me because of all the different ideas and references it uses to tell its story about people searching for meaning, all while being enjoyable to me. Series that I rate 9 follow the same logic, but there is just something special or a deeper connection that gives them the edge over my 8s, and so on. Ratings between 5 and 7 are for stuff that I simply enjoy, 4 and below are varying degrees of dislike. There are certain things that deeply offend me, like tastelessly depicting same-sex relationships as being rapey for no reason other than fanservice (Citrus), that instantly makes me rate something low. I also rate stuff I dropped, which contributes to my low ratings as well. I've seen my fair share of things that I don't like, but from my perspective, what I do like weighs a lot heavier so I'm always able to stick around and find stuff I do enjoy. Hope that answers your question. c:
mruize85 Jan 19, 6:05 AM
I assumed you read all chapters so I didn't care about spoils. Good plots take time. If they are betrayed by moon people it will take some chapters, if not the entire story. I suspect they will go to the Moon, they will stay there or return back to Earth with promises and everything will go fine, but as time goes more and more suspicions are raised. Maybe they are not what they told they are and the reason they want gems and Sensei is darker. Who knows. I'm just speculating... But in any case, I don't like to wait to know what happens next, so I will wait half a year or more to take it back.
mruize85 Jan 18, 2:59 PM
I didn't checked recently, but probably 1 or 2 from the last. They was planning to go the Moon. They will be betrayed and I don't want to wait one month after each read, so I paused.