Should a review be "objective"?

[alexander]

I read maybe half the thread. People really need to be more concise.

What I know as the traditional newspaper review contributes to the discussion of what everybody consumes, anyway. Their critics have more education or experience in the medium than the reader, and try to turn his attention towards what differentiates one work from all the others. Good/bad comes after. Personal experience only ever features to explain non-obvious decisions.

All online anime reviews I've seen are pushing their preferences and interpretations, with precious little knowledge of context but plenty of unintentional spoilers.

If we call those two extremes objective and subjective, I want more of the former, please. Despite appearances it is more helpful in deciding what to watch, as it leaves room for users to apply their own unique taste.

[VivisQueen]

I have no idea why you're comparing us to newspaper reviewers specifically, but you're right - PAID reviewers do have more experience/education in their particular subject matter than their readers.

Unfortunately most online anime reviewers are not paid. ANN has paid reviewers, and I'm sure other professional e-zines too, but the vast majority of places do not. That does not mean online reviewers should revert to writing dry fact; nobody would actually read that and then we'd be even less useful than you think we are now. Moreover, all the experienced/educated, paid reviewers began writing unprofessional works and got good enough to be published, so criticising the existence of amateur online reviews is ridiculous in itself. The unprofessional casual writers of today provide the pool from which the professional writers of tomorrow grow.

I do wonder if you maybe should take your own advice: instead of making nonsensical judgements about reviews, do some yourself and gain some understanding of what reviewing actually involves. Otherwise your comments are totally unhelpful.

[alexander]

Originally Posted by VivisQueen

making nonsensical judgements about reviews

I don't think my post could be interpreted the way you did if I had written "Other reviews" instead of "All online anime reviews", which would have been better.

You also know that "I don't read reviews", but that has little to do what I wrote above. I just prefer to get my own impression first.

So I'm not slamming AP reviewers. Like everybody in this thread I tried to define objective/subjective and answer the question posed.

You may think my kind of objectivity is not realistic under the circumstances, but that doesn't make mentioning it unhelpful.

[VivisQueen]

Originally Posted by alexander

All online anime reviews I've seen are pushing their preferences and interpretations, with precious little knowledge of context but plenty of unintentional spoilers.

If we call those two extremes objective and subjective, I want more of the former, please. Despite appearances it is more helpful in deciding what to watch, as it leaves room for users to apply their own unique taste.

Originally Posted by alexander

Like everybody in this thread I tried to define objective/subjective and answer the question posed.

You may think my kind of objectivity is not realistic under the circumstances, but that doesn't make mentioning it unhelpful.

It's not that I 'may think' your definitions are unhelpful - they are factually incorrect. With all due respect, use a dictionary, alexander.

Your argument is irrelevant to this thread because it does not address the subject at hand. It's just a general rant about reviewers not understanding enough about the backgrounds of anime and including unintentional spoilers (the two points aren't even meaningfully related to each other - they're not mutually exclusive opposites or extreme ends of a spectrum like objectivity/subjectivity, just randomly picked traits of reviewing habits).

In regards to whether or not your assessments are helpful, please refer to my post above.

[alexander]

Originally Posted by VivisQueen

they are factually incorrect. With all due respect, use a dictionary,

(being something due is nice ;)

Entirely possible that my third language skills don't adhere to a dictionary. I'm not sure what you mean, though.

Your argument is irrelevant to this thread because it does not address the subject at hand.

I understood this to be about how any review should be, not what AP reviewers should change.

the two points aren't even meaningfully related to each other

Yes, I should have written "and" instead of "but". It's not very strict in German.

PS no fair underlining something I already retracted

EDIT

Did you possible take the extremes to be knowledge and spoilers? I meant the two paragraphs!

[VivisQueen]

Okey dokey, so you've edited your post, and it makes more sense now.

You're in essence right to wish for well-informed reviews (which you label 'objective', but that's still a misapplication of the term). But you're also being unreasonable. Like I said, most online anime reviewers are YOUNG, UNPAID, CASUAL writers who don't have the time or inclination to gain years of education and understanding about this artform. It's just not feasible. It doesn't mean that online reviews are useless either. Indeed, there's a lot of junk, but a mediocre review can still give you a sufficient taste of what the anime is about.

Finally, even the paid professionals, no matter how educated, only give you their opinion. Their reviews are likely to have fewer errors or misconceptions, but just because they know who wrote the script and how long the composer's been in the industry it doesn't mean they can give a truly objective view. Whatever review you read, you are absorbing someone's preferences.

[CrazyAce01]

Originally Posted by alexander

If we call those two extremes objective and subjective, I want more of the former, please. Despite appearances it is more helpful in deciding what to watch, as it leaves room for users to apply their own unique taste.

A review is making the statement "this is my opinion of the work". All reviews do (or should) incorporate some facts from the work, but are inherently opinionated... because that's what they are... opinions. If you don't like that, you should read summaries, and not bother with reviews at all.

I enjoy reviews, however, and to make them more helpful I look for reviewers that share my opinions on different types of works. Then you can go back to that reviewer for the best advice because you know their response is similar to what your own would probably be. Certainly more effective than wishing for reviews suiting your tastes.

Although, you probably don't need me to tell you that. Just a friendly suggestion! :)

[VivisQueen]

alexander:

Just as an example, I'm reading these Rolling Stone reviews, and they reviewer is a paid professional. But if you read the content, he doesn't spend ages analysing the background of each show and where it comes from etc. His writing is highly opinionated - and wittily so.

Movie Reviews : Rolling Stone

[alexander]

Originally Posted by VivisQueen

I'm reading these Rolling Stone reviews

I read three by Travers, and they were pretty uneven. Potter was crap, Star Trek good, Watchmen full of information but also spoilers.

What I like is "what I know as the traditional newspaper review", like this. Maybe the US just don't do those?

(not the best example, but their search is useless)

[Quizap]

No.. the US does more newspaper reviews then most. Most of them are HIGHLY opinionated and bash anything they have the slightest dislike in. Examples being the Chicago Tribune, especially the Boston Herald and I think the LA Times is another.

I'd say a few more things but Alexander and I already had this discussion in another thread so it's pointless to continue on with it between us since we've pretty much come to an agreement