Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx
But.... you just criticized my definitions.  And you're not a critic? |
A critic of anime? I don't tend to think so. But, a critic of this line of logic? Abso-frickin-lutely. Because understanding the way arguments are received helps us come to a better understanding of each other, and that's ultimately my primary goal: that, through the discussion, we understand each other. That's the same reason why I'm letting myself be so passionate about this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx
Really that's what I'm saying -- simply by sharing those feelings and evaluating a series --- you're a critic.
1) share my experiences and explain why impressions and feelings when watching the show.
2) A critic is trying to evaluate the work and describe, in objective terms, its qualities.
I see those two items as exactly the same thing, one just may be a hair more formal than the other (but often isn't if you watch professional critics).
When someone asks me what I thought about a movie -- they're asking me for my critique I've always thought of the forum as an analogue to a book club where people share a book, talk about what they thought of it, debate, and critique. If that is incorrect.... hmmmm.
|
Then, by that definition, shall we say that it's a matter of tactfulness in the approach? I do perceive a rather immense difference between someone who comes into a thread and says "This episode is just awful, and here are the reasons why...", and someone who says "I didn't really enjoy this episode, because I was hoping for..." You might say "they're both critiques", but what is the net effect? One is threatening ("I'm right and let me tell you why...") and the other is more neutral ("Let me share my thoughts...").
Whenever this argument comes up, it seems to me that it always comes down to the very same thing. You have people who read arguments intellectually, and people who read arguments emotionally. That isn't to say one is "smart" and the other isn't; it's a personality issue. People who present intellectual arguments tend to be lighter on "tact" in favour of providing objective justifications for their arguments. People who present emotional perspectives/arguments tend to content themselves with just sharing their feelings without a huge need to find some objective cause for it (i.e. "liking something is reason enough").
When the two clash, we have this problem: Emotional people who don't like seeing the harmony disrupted by people who keep wanting to "prove they're right" (actually: demonstrate that their arguments have merit), and intellectual people who get all offended that their
right to express a negative opinion is being threatened by, what they see as, fanboys and yes-men (actually: usually people who don't understand why you'd watch something you "seem" to dislike so much).
Anyway, all that to say, neither personality type wants or expects the other to go away, they each want the other to be
more like them in typical Pygmalion fashion. Of course I'm no exception in that regard, partly because stamping out these sorts of arguments is what I'm supposed to do (and I do realize that I've helped encourage it again this time -- I hope you'll forgive me for having my limits).
Regardless, this is what I feel the issue is in this thread, but obviously discussing it more here is beyond the scope of the topic. But I hope at least this helps to explain, especially to those presenting the intellectual "objective" arguments, why they've provoked a reaction. I don't think it's at all because anyone wants to shut up disagreement; I think it's about the emotional way the arguments are received. And if we want to really have some measure of peace and harmony, even when topics are contentious, I think we at least need to understand where we're all coming from.
I'll leave it at that so as to not derail the topic further, though I wouldn't mind continuing this broader discussion if another suitable venue was found. I do think this is an important issue.