Should a review be "objective"?

[ForgottenSon]

I think you hit the nail on the head with your second to last paragraph, vivafruit.

Originally Posted by Roxas

The idea of "objective good taste" died with bourgeosie "top-down" cultural influence. In modern times, works are "good" when they sell well, rather than because a bunch of well-educated elites said so. Which way is better? Who knows.

I disagree to some extent. There is still a strong ruling elite present in the art and entertainment world, shaping the opinions of all those who listen to them. You just have to pick up a music magazine like Rolling Stone to see that.

[vivafruit]

Wow, thanks for all of the intelligent replies. Maybe I should make threads more often, as there are some really interesting posts here. I can't possibly comment on everything, but I would like to discuss one recurring topic - the concept that a review should use objective facts to support its opinion.

I don't buy this idea. The mere act of presenting facts to support your opinion is in itself subjective.

Consider the following two sentences:

Sentence 1:
Evangelion is one of the most loved series in the history of anime.

Sentence 2:
Evangelion is one of the most hated series in the history of anime.

Both of these sentences are true facts, but if I were to include just 1 in my review I would not be being objective - far from it, actually. The only way to be truly objective would be to include facts that supported every possible viewpoint, which is impossible as there are as many viewpoints on Earth as there are people. It would also result in a long, wordy, and very unconvincing work.

This is not to mention that, as Tetra has pointed out, truth is usually subjective anyway.

I have to go for now, but I'll try to write some more before I go to bed tonight.

[v16]

A question, have you ever dealt with the Wikipedia? They've got this problem all the time and got to solve it far easier, despite having much stronger objectivism goals.

Sentence 1:
Evangelion is one of the most loved series in the history of anime.
Sentence 2:
Evangelion is one of the most hated series in the history of anime.
Both of these sentences are true facts,

With proper cherry-picking, one can create opposites impressions about the same.
A proper sentence would be "Evangelion is both one of the most loved and most hated series in the history of anime", which not only is true and sufficiently complete, but also carries significant information.

but I would like to discuss one recurring topic - the concept that a review should use objective facts to support its opinion.

In my opinion, no. It shouldn't. You present facts to support your opinions when you're making an argument.
In a review, you rather present your opinions to interpret, summarize and complement the facts. The reviewer's task, unlike debator's, is not to prove his point, but rather to convey information in a well readable, interesting form, which the opinions help.

A review from fact reports alone is a poor review lacking the summarization, but still a review. These fact reports won't be fully trustworthy, but they don't have to be.
A review from opinions alone is just a lot of words that could be functionally replaced by a table of ratings for each aspect.

The only way to be truly objective would be to include facts that supported every possible viewpoint, which is impossible as there are as many viewpoints on Earth as there are people.

It's not objectivity. The sum of all opinions isn't objective; it's neutral, but still subjective. A scientific report is objective, even if there are contradicting ones, and even if it's eventually proven wrong.

The way to be objective is to tell what you have seen and understood. Just that simple.

[Cetonis]

hmm... I'm going to nitpick a bit here, viva. Regarding your example, I actually wouldn't think of those as truly factual statements in the context of a review. Sounds wierd, but bear with me. Consider a review with this statement:

"First, a note on how this historic anime has been viewed. Evangelion is one of the most hated anime of all time. <review moves on to another topic>"

While the singular sentence about Eva being hated may be factual, the statement as a whole is not, since it fails to really represent how the anime is thought of. Whether or not that can still be called an objective statemnt doesn't matter. Since either way, one of the first rules of reviewing is to correctly represent the facts, which this example does not. As such, we could not use it as a realistic example of what one might see in an attempt at an objective review.

Now, I would argue that when a reviewer puts a statement such as your examples in their review, the first sentence in my example is implied. In other words, as people read reviews, there are underlying assumptions they make regarding the current topic. When the review starts talking about the art style, the reader is thinking "ok, he's talking about the animation now." When stereotyped side characters are mentioned, they think "ok, he's explaining what the supporting characters are like now." And when someone writes something like "Eva is one of the most hated anime ever", the assumption is "ok, he's going to talk about the show's reputation now." Just as if the first sentece had been explicitly typed. Which makes the statement "Eva is one of the most hated anime ever" end up representing an idea that is factually incorrect once it is placed in a review.

But, isn't even my sample statement at least half-true? Well, yes. But most would agree that's not really good enough to be called truly factually accurate. Of course, as you said, saying both the loved and hated sentences wouldn't be 100% accurate either, and to be fully accurate one would have to account for millions of viewpoints. So where is the line drawn? How close is good enough? Well, I imagine there's a pretty solid consensus on "as accurate as it is reasonably possible to be in a fairly concise manner".

However, I'm not sure that even matters. I feel that statements regarding the public opinion of a show are neither necessary nor pointful to have in a review anyway. People read reviews to get a specific analysis of the various aspects of a show. If they wanted the general opinion they'd just go to the anidb graph. That may be nitpicking at the specifics of the example, but I'm not sure the needs-every-viewpoint theory necessarily applies to any other factual sort of statment besides those that attempt to summarize other's viewpoints.

In any case, to stop rambling, I agree with v16 in that I don't think a review is supposed to be a series of opinions supported by facts, but rather a collection of facts colored by opinions. The objective aspect of this is to try and represent the facts as accurately as reasonably possible, and avoid the trap of only using those facts that support one's opinion, or covering a topic with solely opinion and no factual basis.

[VivisQueen]

My answer started brief, then morphed out of control:

The idea of a review being objective is not only silly, but also a fruitless thing to pursue in itself. A review is by default subjective because it is based on value judgements which are based on one person's peculiar experiences, tastes etc. By giving your opinion frankly, coherently, and hopefully eloquently, you are not being objective, you are just being honest. Anyway, all that matters is that those views are adequately supported. Same principles as writing an English essay - only less detail to avoid spoilers and less droning on about technical terms.

CETONIS: I don't know, maybe it's just me but 'a series of opinions supported by facts' and 'a collection of facts coloured by opinions' seem like rather pointless distinctions. Any good review will be comprised of both of these, and often they will merge.

The objective aspect in a review is maybe the 5% of actual facts i.e. pure account of an event/characteristic, and in my opinion the least important aspect. That might be something like 'Rose of Versailles is set just before the French Revolution' or 'Lelouch uses his mind-control powers on others'. The idea of avoiding 'the trap of only using those facts that support one's opinion' isn't something you expect from a review, but from a discursive essay. I have never thought 'what other facts are there that could give me different opinions?' because by the time I finish the series, my mind has solidified what particular facts are important and what they mean in the context of the story. Considering other facts/interpretations is just me arbitrarily coming up with hypothetical views that neither I nor someone concrete actually holds, meaning it's not at all helpful for those wanting to use my review as a guide. If they want opposing 'facts', they'll look at other opposing reviews.

Eh - I talk too much.

[Kastrophee]

I guess it is my turn to add my two cents, I have never really been that interested in reading positive reviews unless it is a certain good reviewer (As sothis and vivafruit, or if it something I want to read a review about), but reviews that bash stories are far more interesting (Only if they are well written as a review). Reasons why someone hated something always seems to give me a better impression if I will like it or not.

[vivafruit]

Couldn't post last night, but tonight I have plenty of time.

@Cetonis: Perhaps it was a poor example, as my intent seems to have been misinterpreted. My point was that if you arrange your facts so that they support your opinion (which most, if not all, reviews do) then you are effectively cherry-picking your facts subjectively, whether you intend to or not.

Put another way, if there was a way to support your opinions with objectively chosen facts, then no one could possibly disagree with you. However, since someone can validly disagree with almost any subjective opinion (even a statement as simple as "Eva is a good show"), this is a clearly impossible ideal.

I hope that clears things up.

v16: Your view, if I understand it correctly, is that you agree with my example, but think that a review shouldn't even try to support your opinion and merely present "what I have seen and understood."

The problem with this viewpoint is that "what I have seen and understood" is very much subjective, and will be different for each person. This seems so obvious to me that I don't think I even really need to justify it, but I will if you want me to.

Similarly, I feel that a Wiki article is so fundamentally different from a review in form and content that I really don't think this example applies at all. The fact that an objective Wiki article is possible does not in any way imply that an objective review is possible, and it certainly doesn't imply that an objective review is desirable.

It's not objectivity. The sum of all opinions isn't objective; it's neutral, but still subjective. A scientific report is objective, even if there are contradicting ones, and even if it's eventually proven wrong.

Well, this is off-topic, but it's also interesting, so I'll indulge myself a bit and talk about it (hey, it's my thread).

This depends very much on your definition of truth. While I don't think that consensus truth (if the consensus believe it, it is true) is generally a fitting definition, I think it very much applies to works of entertainment. If everyone in the universe thinks that a series is "entertaining" or "exciting" or "thought-provoking," then it is these things by definition.

Thus, the set of all opinions is indeed an objective account, at least by my definition of truth.

EDIT:

Also, yeah. What Vivi'sQueen said.

[Cetonis]

vivi/viva: I think there is actually a rather large disticntion between writing a review as <your opinion, supported by facts> versus writing a review as <the facts about a series, with your opinions added in>.

How about this:

Say Bush gives a speech where he says he is going to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq, and explains that his reasoning behind this is so that the country could be stabilized faster, and therefore it would be safe to bring the troops home sooner than it would be otherwise.

Now, say you feel like sending 20,000 more troops can only serve to make things worse, and you wanted to portray this idea to someone else.


Opinion, supported by fact: "Bush is making things worse and worse in Iraq. Today he said he was sending 20,000 more troops!"

The facts, accompanied by opinion: "Bush is going to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq, under the theory that it will end the ordeal faster. I think that's ridiculous; sending more troops will only cause the Iraqis to be more dependant and make it harder to get out of there."


Notice the difference - the second statement actually allows the listener the oppurtunity to agree with Bush. Also, it requires you to explain yourself a bit more, since you must overcome information that conflicts with your belief.

As v16 pointed out, opinions supported by fact are used for arguing with/persuading people. However, the purpose of a review is not to persuade but to inform. For that, it is much better to state the facts, complemented by your opinion.

[Arcanum]

^

Cetonis, that was an excellent point, illustrated with a crystal-clear example. I applaud your lucidity.

[vivafruit]

The second statement is perhaps fairer, but it is still very much a subjective statement. For one, you bring two points against sending troops (Iraqis become more dependent, harder to get out of there), and only one semi-point for sending troops (might end the war faster). You also call Bush's point a "theory."

Also, consider:

"Some people have the theory that sending more troops to Iraq will cause the Iraqis to become more dependent and make it harder to get out of there. I think that's ridiculous; sending 20,000 more troops will end the war faster."

The exact same sentence, reversed, is convincing in the opposite direction. Not only does selection of facts matter, but delivery does as well.

EDIT 1:

Vivi's Queen has already pointed this out, but it has yet to be addressed. A person is most capable of defending his or her personal point of view, and least capable of defending a point of view that he or she disagrees with. As such, even if a reviewer attempts to argue both sides equally, the result will still end up subjective due to the limitations of the reviewer.

EDIT 2:

You seem to be implying that a review cannot persuade and inform at the same time. This seems like a dubious assertion to me.

EDIT 3:

Another implication I just thought of is that a persuasive essay must ignore opposing viewpoints. This could not be farther from the truth - a good persuasive essay acknowledges potential opposing arguments and addresses them. The result is often very similar to Cetonis' example - point: counterpoint.