Should a review be "objective"?

[Cetonis]

Well, I thought the theory was that we might be able to eventually apply our agreed definition of objective to the act of review writing, or at least to gauging the quality of a review... isn't it nice to dream? :P

EDIT: I apparently can't sleep until I take care of this. We have a problem - it is simply not possible to discuss reviewing (something constructive) without figuring this objective thing out. The reason shall be clarified in a little bit. I'll hope to make this my last ridiculous post.

Instead of going back to earlier arguments, etc., I'd like to just start from scratch. In the process of picking at examples, responding to selected things, trying different angles and wording things in different ways, all we really ended up doing is creating a confused mess where nobody seems to quite understand what anybody's talking about. So please disregard earlier statements I have made, for the sake of sanity.

The logical progression as I see it, from scratch:

1. In order for something to be objectively true, it would have to be true for every person, everywhere, at every time. This is by definition.

2. Because of this, it is all but impossible for a statement to be objectively true. There will always be variation in perceptions, interpretations, etc. so it will always be possible for a disagreement to exist. (We could debate the objectivity of scientific measurements, but that isn't important here)

3. As a result, the notion of objectivity has no practical use as it relates to reviews - a review, by nature, would never contain a statement that could have any hope of being objectively true.

4. So, when talking about reviews, we should avoid considering the notion of objectivity since it isn't relevant. We should just use a word like "fact" instead.

5. A fact, by definition, is something that is universally held to be true - in other words, objectively true. We have a problem.

6. Because the concept of objectivity has no relevance in a review, neither does the concept of a fact. It would be incredibly difficult to try to discuss reviews without using the notion that something can be factually true.

7. The best way to solve this problem* would be to say something like: "For the purposes of this discussion, we define a 'fact' to be something that would be considered to be true by the overwhelming majority of viewers." This way, we could discuss reviews without confusion or going through all sorts of hoops to avoid certain ideas.

8. This does, though, redefine the notion of objectivity by extension. Which is something Vivi and Viva appear to be avidly against. Hence, we cannot use a modified definition of 'fact', and therefore cannot currently discuss reviews.

*we could simply do something like make up our own word to suit our purposes, but this seems just as silly as making a slight modification to an already existing word, and would be more difficult for passing readers to understand besides that.

This, believe it or not, has pretty much been my perspective on things for all of the recent discussion. I was just so distracted trying to make counterpoints and attempting odd analogies and angles that this was probably never really clear. I hope, beyond all hope, that this makes logical sense to you, viva, as well as to vivi if she happens to read it.

[VivisQueen]

1 - 3 is all correct. It is from 4 that you start ballsing it all up.

If objectivity as defined by a dictionary is not applicable to a review, what you do is not just assume you switch to another equivalent word like 'fact'. Fact in its purest sense ALONE is also not applicable to a review. A review is not a fact, it is an opinion. Firstly, if you want us to use another word, you need to tell us why we'd need a substitute, how that would in any way be useful. After that, if you wanted us to use 'fact', you'd need to show how 'fact' is relevant in a way that 'objectivity' isn't. Why is 'fact' a good substitute for 'objectivity'? You don't show this, you just assume 'fact'.

Proceeding to number 5 and 6, you finally realise that a fact is also irrelevant to a review because it requires something to be held to be objectively true, to be objective reality. No, not universally true, but objectively true. Universality and objectivity are two different things. This has been said several times, please get it into your head. Anyway, the short of it is 'fact' must also be discarded, but it does NOT mean we have a problem.

With number 7, you then make what is called a fallacy. Don't ever make a fallacy in an argument if you don't want your argument to be laughed out of town. The fallacy is called a 'weasel word'. This is taken from 'A Rulebook for Arguments' by Anthony Weston (third edition). It's on page 78, and it's listed under the heading 'Some Classical Fallacies'. Look it up.

Weasel word:changing the meaning of a word in the middle of your argument so that your conclusion can be maintained, though its meaning may have shifted radically. Usually a maneuver performed under the pressure of a counterexample.

A. All studying is torture.
B. What about studying argument? You love that!
A. Well, that's not really studying.

Here "studying" is the weasel word. A's response to B's objection in effect changes the meaning of "studying" to "studying that is torture." A's first statement remains true, but only at the cost of becomign trivial ("All studying that is torture is torture").

The weirdest part is, the part that grates, is that you are not just making a 'weasel word' fallacy in line with the example, you are deliberately making a fallacy, believing it to be justified. You are deliberately being irrational so you can come to the conclusion you want to come to.

We only end up having a problem because you're dogmatically holding onto a label (objectivity) that has nothing to do with reviewing. And the only reason you're holding onto that label is because Vivafruit started the debate using the term 'objectivity', but even his question uses 'objectivity' in the wrong way! Even he recognised that. He said it many, many posts ago. So, the initiator of this debate recognises that the true definition of objectivity is not useful to reviewing, many of us in the beginning recognise that a review may never be objective in the true sense, you recognise that true objectivity is not useful to reviewing, so does the only bloody (former) student of philosophy in this debate, Ingrey... I mean, what are we still doing on this topic?

All you have done is create a fallacy in order to drag on a debate that should naturally have changed track. Because in the end, I presume that what Viva wanted was a discussion on how to make a review 'good'. This can be done by discussing the language used in a review or the length of a review or what sections a review should cover etc etc, and with our combined intelligence, we might have not just had an interesting debate, but a relevant debate with a good outcome.

This is the real answer to the original thread question: 'Dear Vivafruit, objectivity as understood in its only relevant sense cannot ever be achieved in a review. Not only that, even if by some miracle we were to attain an objective perspective, the resulting review would be unhelpful to an anime fan in deciding whether to watch the anime in question. Thus no, a review should not ever be "objective". However, this does not preclude a discussion on what is necessary to make a good review. I propose well-justified arguments and detail as fundamental criteria for a good review. Perhaps we can continue this discussion by looking at what these entail.'

So stop that silly talk about objectivity, facts, all that crap, toss it aside. Forget it. If we get over this obsession with introducing a fallacy, then we can finally move on.

[Cetonis]

So, someone (me, probably v16) who thinks it might useful to consider if something is going to be true for the majority of readers isn't even allowed to debate it? We're just going to keep getting slammed for talking about something related to objectivity or objective fact? (I used the word universal because I thought I would get criticized if I skipped straight to objective - guess that was unnecessary) How can we debate when one side is banned from presenting their views?

ADDITION: If the question of being true for the majority of viewers is irrelevant, than a review that, say, describes Haibane Renmei as a mindless action anime, using all kinds of made-up details and justifications for its stance, could not be considered to have any problems. We couldn't complain that most of what it says is false, because that assumes something can be factually true, which it can't so we can't talk about it. And its opinions are well detailed and justified, so it would be a good review despite the fact that nearly all viewers would find it completely misleading.

This, of course, would (hopefully) never happen, but there are all kinds of 'gray' versions of this 'black' extreme that might be worth discussing. But we can't, if we aren't allowed to care about whether or not something would be true for most viewers.

If I am misunderstanding you, and you do think it's okay to talk about things being true for the vast majority of viewers, then please tell me what word you want me to use to describe that concept. I'll use any word you want; I'll say palafulfoof if you so desire. I *thought* it would be okay to just use 'fact', since that's how most people use the word anyway, but you seem to despise that idea with all your heart and soul. So please, give me a word. If you know of a word that is defined as 'being true for almost all people', please enlighten me. I'm honestly not being sarcastic, I just want to be able to move on to a more useful debate.

*I apologize if this happens to interrupt something you might be in the progress of typing >.<

[vivafruit]

Originally Posted by Vivi's Queen

Because in the end, I presume that what Viva wanted was a discussion on how to make a review 'good'.

Haha, my motives are far less noble than you believe. I started this thread almost solely for the purpose of starting an interesting conversation (I got one!). If I had any ulterior motives, it was to try and get one or two people to stop using this damn word when they talked about reviews.

When it comes to actually producing useful information on how to make a review "good," I believe there are far more expedient ways than arguing over the nature of blue. However, just because a conversation isn't useful doesn't mean it's not interesting. This is, essentially, why there are philosophy majors. :P

Anyhow, I have to study for an exam tomorrow, so I won't be able to post anything substantial for a while. Still, I'll try to jump in when I can.

[VivisQueen]

CETONIS: Okay, I will give you a term for what you mean. 'Intersubjective agreement' - this is a philosophical term.

However, I disagree that the more a review reflects the intersubjective agreement, the more truthful it is. The real test of a review is to check how well it justifies its arguments. This means a review is only as 'true' as its justifications, but this does not make it objectively true.

Theoretically, even a good review can claim that Haibane Renmei is a violent action-fest series. However, this is only possible if they can justify their claim with detail and examples (if they are well-justified). As you can see, it's nigh impossible, although not actually impossible, for someone to justifiably claim Haibane Renmei is a violent action-fest series. This is because they will be hard pressed to find enough evidence in the series of violence or action.

Also, even if a review is well-justified and detailed, it won't necessarily be a reflection of intersubjective agreement. My review of Elfen Lied would rate it very low, and I consider my reviews well-justified and detailed enough to be sufficiently good (otherwise sothis would have asked me to stop reviewing by now). Still, I can bet you most of the members of this site would disagree with me about Elfen Lied. This doesn't make my review invalid or 'not good', it just means my review doesn't match popular opinion.

This is why lots of people agreeing, even to the point of one person disagreeing (trivial number), does not necessarily reveal the review to be any less 'truthful'. This is why Vivafruit and I can both write detailed reviews of Code Geass but still come to very different conclusions about how good it is. You are in essence equating popularity (level of intersubjective agreement) with fact.

Do you see where you are going wrong now? If not, I will post what I was originally going to post.

[VivisQueen]

Originally Posted by vivafruit

If I had any ulterior motives, it was to try and get one or two people to stop using this damn word when they talked about reviews.

Hahaha! In which case, I'm your number one champion. Objectivity, bah. Who gives a shit?

PS. Oh good luck with your exams! Get a First!

[Cetonis]

I'm afraid of what you were going to initially post...

Intersubjective agreement, huh? Sounds good... but, you seem to be referring to intersubjective agreement regarding the opinion on whether an anime is good or not. I naturally agree that a good review can be written both praising and bashing an anime, at the very least.

Is it possible to say something like "intersubjective agreement on whether or not the sky is blue"? This is the first time I've heard of this term, so I can't say I really know much about it...

If you can, then does it make sense to translate "don't make up details to use in justifications" as "try to use details that are intersubjctively agreed upon as being true?" This is all pretty sporadic, but I'm trying to get a feel for the term.

I would agree that the sheer amount of intersubjectively agreed upon statements does not, in and of itself, mean much in terms of review quality. But I would consider it a positive thing if the reader can walk away with a decent "intersubjectively agreed upon" idea of what the anime is like - i.e., the pace is fast, there are strategically oriented battles, the characters don't get very much development, etc.

Of course, I may just be horribly horribly misusing the term. Please let me know.

[ingrey]

I have to head out now for a couple hours. But let me just point out that you can have sentences which are true, but only provide information about the psychological states of the reviewer. However, as I mentioned a little earlier, if you have enough of a grasp on what type of stuff the reviewer likes, then you may be able to infer from those true statements that contain psychological information about his reaction to how you might respond to the show. This isn't always going to be the case, but it often will be.

Also, just because the content of a sentence is about, in part, someone's psychological reaction to a show, it doesn't follow that the sentence isn't true. Consider something like, "The structural elements of Code Geass made it a masterpiece," you could have an analysis of that sentence that basically says "person x and time t had z reaction to code geass" or something along those lines, and that proposition would be true. Sentences which are objectively true are not the only kinds of sentences, there are also subjectively true sentences. Or you can ignore those categories and just say that there are true sentences, and then there are false ones. Have to go, be back later.

[vivafruit]

Whee procrastination.

Originally Posted by Cetonis

Is it possible to say something like "intersubjective agreement on whether or not the sky is blue"? This is the first time I've heard of this term, so I can't say I really know much about it...

Yes. Intersubjectively, "The sky is blue" is basically a true statement (negating maybe a tenth of a percent of the world population).

If you can, then does it make sense to translate "don't make up details to use in justifications" as "try to use details that are intersubjctively agreed upon as being true?" This is all pretty sporadic, but I'm trying to get a feel for the term.

No. To me, a good review will be written something like this:

1. A reviewer comes into a series with a certain opinion on the show. Her opinion is not something she can control.
2. The reviewer starts by thinking carefully about what is causing her opinion on this show.
3. To the best of her ability as a writer, the reviewer honestly explains both her opinion and the reasons for why her opinion came to be.

If the reviewer pays any attention at all to (her perception of) public consensus, it is only to compare her opinion to this consensus and explain the reasons for why it is similar or different. Essentially, she is only using public consensus as a tool for readers to better understand her opinion.

If there is a place for objectivity anywhere in this process, it is in step 3, where the writer tries to honestly describe her motivations. It is this step, I think, that v16 is referring to when he says that a review should be objective. The idea is that ideally the review will be an unbiased account of the person's internal thought process. The problem is that this part has nothing to do with the anime OR with other people's perception of the anime, at least not directly. You will be making objective statements on your own mind, perhaps, but this will not translate to objective statements about the anime.

What will result is not a comprehensive map of the anime, but an account of how the anime would look if one goes down a particular road.

[VivisQueen]

Originally Posted by Cetonis

Intersubjective agreement, huh? Sounds good... but, you seem to be referring to intersubjective agreement regarding the opinion on whether an anime is good or not. I naturally agree that a good review can be written both praising and bashing an anime, at the very least.

Is it possible to say something like "intersubjective agreement on whether or not the sky is blue"? This is the first time I've heard of this term, so I can't say I really know much about it...

Firstly, yes, you are using the term correctly, going by its use in the link I posted. And yes, I believe you can say 'intersubjective agreement upon whether the sky is blue'. Unless you're blind or colour blind, I would bet my life upon nigh-universal intersubjective agreement upon the sky being blue.

Secondly, no, I didn't intend it to mean 'intersubjective agreement on whether the review is good'. I meant 'intersubjective agreement on whether the review is an accurate reflection of how you'll experience the show'. Going back to the Code Geass example, both Viva and I use similar details but came to different conclusions on how we experienced the show. I have a feeling more people would intersubjectively agree with me, but this does not make his review any less accurate a reflection of how it is to experience Code Geass.

Originally Posted by Cetonis

If you can, then does it make sense to translate "don't make up details to use in justifications" as "try to use details that are intersubjctively agreed upon as being true?" This is all pretty sporadic, but I'm trying to get a feel for the term.

I would agree that the sheer amount of intersubjectively agreed upon statements does not, in and of itself, mean much in terms of review quality. But I would consider it a positive thing if the reader can walk away with a decent "intersubjectively agreed upon" idea of what the anime is like - i.e., the pace is fast, there are strategically oriented battles, the characters don't get very much development, etc.

Firstly, telling someone to use only intersubjectively agreed upon details means forcing them to 1) check with other people first what they think before writing a review that is meant to be their own personal reflection, and 2) means just using details that are widely noticed, not necessarily noticed by the reviewer (the reviewer might pick up something that one thousand others did not). So no, 'don't make up details for justification' does not mean 'try to use only intersubjectively agreed upon details'.

Now, I understand your concern about the evidence that is drawn upon actually being derived from the show (being facts rather than outright fabrications). For example, you wouldn't want me to say Haibane Renmei has got mecha fights in it when it hasn't. However, I feel this worry you have is actually out of proportion, and even if it were to happen, intersubjective agreement would not in fact be the solution.

Firstly, the damaging effects of someone making up evidence in an anime review will be minimal and most likely contained. Let's suppose someone wrote a review of Haibane Renmei saying there was mecha in it and so much violence and action, and they made up very detailed facts about it to support their argument. This is a well-justified review on the face of it. Also, let's assume this would be the first person to have ever seen Haibane Renmei. Eventually, someone would read the review, watch it, and then come back and challenge the review's 'evidence'. A third person might read the review or have watched the debate between the first two and subsequently watch the show. They would also most likely come back and challenge the initial review, and so on and so forth until everyone's up in arms about it. Over time, people would realise this person made up details which really aren't in the anime. No matter how good (detailed and 'well-justified') their fake review is, they would ask it to be withdrawn because it's a fabrication.

I can imagine you would take that as intersubjective agreement saving the day, but I would argue it is not. It isn't just that the review doesn't reflect the majority of people's experience of the show (the way Viva's CG review doesn't reflect my experience of the show), it's that the review has no bearing on the show full stop. This is just a matter of the 'evidence' being revealed as not evidence at all. You could say the review is objectively irrelevant.

Another reason your concern for 'wrong facts' in a review is out of proportion is that this is highly unlikely to happen in the first place. Anybody who made up facts in a review in order to support a claim they wished to make about an anime is either irrational (clinically insane, clinically stupid) or just has a weird sense of humour (a sad shit). Actually, there is a third option, which covers the accusation you made of someone in a review thread - which is that they did not complete the show; they just simply didn't utilise the full universe of evidence upon which to draw. Their review could thus make claims which are reasonable based on evidence drawn from only four episodes, but then are not reasonable once put in the context of all the episodes.

Only the last example is really something we should worry about. How often do you think this happens, though? Also, as long as someone makes it explicit that they have only watched four episodes (reveals the universe of evidence upon which they will draw), then their claims might be well-supported given the limited context. Frankly, if someone admitted that they had not fully seen the show, I doubt their review would be taken seriously, considering most of us want to know what it feels like to experience the entire show, not just parts of it.

Considering the vast majority of us want to be taken seriously when we give our opinions on anime, going out of your way to emphasise that people should use facts derived from the anime they are reviewing is like reminding people to write their reviews in the English language - it's pedantic in the extreme.