Should a review be "objective"?

[vivafruit]

This thread topic is spawned from a conversation I've had numerous times over the five or so years that I've been reviewing anime. Basically, the question is: should a review be "objective?" What do you define as an "objective review?"

Personally, I am a firm believer that all reviews should be almost entirely subjective. I read a review not to get a normalized opinion of the show (if I wanted that I could just look at the average score on a site like anidb), but to hear a first-hand account of what a (hopefully well-spoken) individual experienced. This, in my mind, is much more helpful than just randomly spouting off objective facts (i.e Cowboy Bebop is 26 episodes. The budget for Sprited Away was X yen. The seiyuu for Belldandy in Ah! My Goddess is Inoue Kikuko. etc.)

In fact, I think the very idea of an "objective review" for a work of entertainment is oxymoronic. The term implies that there is an objective value independent of all human experience that can be attributed to each work of entertainment. Since works of entertainment, by definition, are only "good" to the extent that they entertain people, this seems clearly absurd to me. Put another way, take away the subjective experiences that people have of an anime, and you automatically take away the work's intrinsic value.

This is not to say, however, that the review shouldn't be well justified, lucid, and knowledgeable. I wouldn't want to read a review of Naruto from a narutard anymore than I'd want to read a first-hand account of a musical from someone who was deaf. It's just that ultimately, no matter how well-written, a review will always be an opinion, and nothing more.

[sothis]

+1.

i agree with everything you said. whats the point of a review if it's not objective?

[Roxas]

"Objective" reviewing of anime (or any entertainment medium) is pretty much impossible. People will never agree on which qualities should be present in a series they would consider "good" (whatever that means). Some people enjoy series with lots of themes and inner meanings; some look for good storytelling; others like lots of emotional content; many are content with the presence of nothing more than action and/or sexual fanservice; and any combination of or in between all of these things are the qualities someone would consider "good."

However, that's not to say that there can't be a minimum level of quality for reviews, because as you said, nobody wants to read "LOL IT R SO GUD U SHUD WATCH IT!" Everything is, in the end, be "an opinion, and nothing more," but unfounded and/or unsupported opinions aren't worth anything.

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.

@sothis: I think you misunderstood him. He's saying that reviews shouldn't be objective because they can't be.

[ParaParaJMo]

Yeah, a lot of people will have MIXED opinions on Evangelion for example. Many say it's the best, many say that it isn't (and I'm one of those people that say it isn't). Arguably, these are amongst one of the many reasons we can all probably agree that Evangelion is of course the most controversial anime of all time.

Well, I personally tend to refrain from more mainstream animes like Naruto because no matter what the fan base, whether newbie, casual anime fan, hardcore anime fan, or Naruatard, there is already an established opinion/acceptance of what it is to the anime/manga community as a whole. It's just like you said, "too normalized." But when I get around to Dragon Ball Z, I will do my best to do it in a way in which bests suits our agreeable views of how reviews should be done.

I mean, all of us who have reviewed for this site are not at all "professional" reviewers or critics. Running my own show doesn't make me at all an authority on the matter.

is much more helpful than just randomly spouting off objective facts (i.e Cowboy Bebop is 26 episodes. The budget for Sprited Away was X yen. The seiyuu for Belldandy in Ah! My Goddess is Inoue Kikuko. etc.)

Yes, that is true. But it is not really meant to be the "core" of the review. But just mere facts just to support personal opinion. Like say, "I like how Inoue Kikuko's portrayal of Belldandy as very formal, lady-like and calm, and never tends to show any aggression but keeps her composure whenever worried," or something like that if that's what you're talking about. Rather than just say "Oh Inoue Kikuko plays Belldandy so she's gotta be good!!!"

[Cetonis]

I think this very debate has quite the ironic issue: the definition of what makes a review objective is, in itself, subjective.

For my part, I would see it as thus:

I think there are plenty of qualities for which one can say that the majority of viewers will find an anime more or less enjoyable because of it. For instance, I would think it is safe to say that ecchi is a negative factor in an anime, because (to my knowledge) most watchers find it annoying/stupid. Similarly, we can safely say things like character depth are a positive factor, as you don't often hear anyone complain that the characters in a show weren't simple enough. I think there are enough things like this that it is possible to write a mostly objective review.

Example:

Objective - Shinji Ikari is a complex and heavily developed character.

Subjective - Shinji Ikari is whiny and extremely annoying.

Now, it's safe to say that not everyone is going to find Shinji to be cripplingly annoying. So, the subjective statement must be taken with a grain of salt. No real harm having this once or maybe twice in a review, but before too long this salt really piles up, and the 'margin if error', if you will, becomes so high that the review doesn't really end up helping at all. There can be so many "I may or may not feel the same about this; I might not wind up agreeing with that; this is something I might actually find interesting/dull" that you can't really use the review to decide whether or not to watch it anymore...

The biggest issue with objective statements, of course, is that not all people consider the same qualities to be good. However, a reader can usually identify where his/her general taste differs from what the writer is percieving as the norm, and adjust the score appropriately to suit them. i.e. an ecchi fanatic can consider the final score having added a point or two for, say, Najica, and someone who hates being bogged down in philosophy can subtract a couple points from a score given to Lain or something. Subjective statements, on the other hand, kind of have to be left in that vague maybe/maybe not area as described before.

Now, it is also true that in the example above the objective statement does nothing to warn the reader that there may be an annoying main character. The solution I would propose is first writing an objective-style review, then following it up with one's subjective opinions at the end. This does not seem much different from mixing the subjective and objective within the review, but this method ensures that everything does get covered objectively. Otherwise, some statements like the example above may accidentally replace the objective analysis and wind up giving a reader very little to go on information-wise about certain aspects...

[v16]

Without going deep into details, I'll only say that a fully subjective review is as useless as a fully objective one, if not more.

What some people don't understand is that I [the reader] don't really care about their opinion, and only care about what factors formed it. If you [vivafruit] praise something in a review, it's good, we have similar taste, but it's only because of the same factors involved.

However, reviews don't need the infamous today NPOV, which many mistakenly confuse with objectivity. They're different. A review, from my POV, should be largely objective, presenting the facts, but not neutral, presenting them with from the reviewer's point of view. I think the idea is clear.

Just in case, to clarify, "While a developed character, Ikari Shinji expressed himself almost entirely in whining, which I eventually found annoying" does it. Developed character, fact, check. Whiner, fact, check. Annoying, semi-opinion, presented as opinion, check. Overall impression negative, opinion, manifested in the sentence's wording, check.

[Arodec]

Damn it, i don't know if i should be happy for saving time or annoyed, but everyone seems to beat me to saying what i'm going to say. :p

Anyways, i agree with v16 on this one.

[Tetra]

I read reviews because I want peoples opinions, not to get a short rundown of the show itself. And to me a review that claim to be fully objective is nothing more than a lie, since, as others have pointed out, it is not possible to write an objective review.
Just take the example of objectivity that Cetonis used. I do not agree that that is objective, since I really do not think that Shinji is either complex or developed. Thus my opinion is different than yours ;)

What I want in a review is reasons for the opinions.

[Cythraul]

Cetonis, if most viewers find ecchi so annoying, why do most anime have at least some ecchi and why are there anime that are about nothing but ecchi? That's like saying most people find giant robots annoying...possibly true, but completely missing the point about niche markets. I for one like ecchi.

(this is a fictious example, not related to any review you or anyone else may have made) If you're going to bash eg Joshikousei in a review because of ecchi, I think your review is useless: Everybody knows (or should know) the show's going to be ecchi beforehand and you're not bringing anything new in. If you're going to review it, your review should be about how it fares as a silly ecchi comedy, not about how much you happen to hate ecchi.

That's, IMHO, what it means to be objective in a review. Judge the show based on it's own merits and how it succeeds in what it tries to do. You can't use the same criteria for every anime there is: Having deep, developed characters might actually detract from an ecchi comedy (IMHO, Joshikousei is worse off for spending so much time developing a certain side character).

[aboumonkey]

all I can say is that reading the opinions of v16 ,viva, cetonis ,cythraul ,roxas,paraparajmo is helping me improve my english . I agree with the above poster : you cannot for example review ''highlander the search for vengeance '' and say that the story completely lacked any depth , since the story in such a movie is basic and has to provide the reader with valid reason for all the bloodshed on screen . This kind of movie however should be judged about whether the fight scenes are well animated ,if it keeps you on the edge of your seat for all its duration whether you can actually care for the characters .
So for me the criteria in reviewing a show should be different and according to each show's main genre or target audience . So if you are for example expecting to see a second ghost in the shell when you are about to watch highlander and then you get disappointed then you shouldn't review it . Some shows are plain fun and should be seen as that .
At least that's what being objective means to me .