Quote:
Originally Posted by relentlessflame
Well, first, I am curious about what two shows you might propose for this sort of experiment.
|
Uta Kata and Puella Magi Madoka Magica come to mind. Nisemonogatari and Bakemonogatari can also work as examples (mind you I haven't seen Nisemono; I'm using these four titles based on the widespread reaction instead of my own).
Quote:
Originally Posted by relentlessflame
How each person gets to their conclusion/opinion is important, but I think you have to back up a little bit further and dwell on the first part a bit more: defining the perceived intent. I dare say that many people's attitudes imply that "the intention of anime should always be to please me", and then go on to explain how the work did or did not meet that objective without presuming the need for any further qualification. But the key difference between us isn't the show, it's our own expectations and tastes. So the point to convey first isn't "why the show succeeded/failed", but what you were looking for in the first place. If everyone acknowledges that what they were seeking may have been different from what others were seeking, then there's no reason to get defensive when a show fails to live up to that person's personal standard or expectation (that may not be shared by others). (And one hopes that people can define their expectations a bit more clearly than "I just expected the anime to be good". Yes, thanks for that...)
|
Of course the primary goal of the author should be to entertain but when we say
intent it's a matter of the means they're using to entertain and how well they're using it; how well is it making us think? or how well is it making us relax? or how well does it get our adrenaline going? If the perceived intent is a drastic content (not execution) change from what the anime offered, then yeah, I
would question if/why the person was trying to "get blood from a turnip," so to speak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by relentlessflame
I think the ability to "see flaws and strengths" (to see things from other perspectives without sacrificing your own) only generally happens when someone doesn't feel that they have to be defensive about everything. When you create a culture where people are constantly battling over their own superiority, people rarely seem interested in considering that the other side has a point. A lack of attention to tone can help escalate the "war of words" and polarize everything into two camps: for and against. It becomes like American politics, to use a colloquial example. As you alluded to above, things really aren't so simple in fact. Because so much of this is in fact subjective, each perspective has the potential to bring something unique to the table. To that end, I think it helps if we try to restrict the "objective talk" to things that are more obviously objective, and allow the subjective to be presented with more clear and specific acknowledgement of its inherent bias so that no one is perceived to be making an unwarranted claim of authority.
|
But we already know most of what's discussed about a work isn't objective else there wouldn't be arguments about its quality in the first place. And if there's an inherent bias being suspected from a statement, the "blood from a turnip" example can call it out; why
does the argument, carefully constructed as it might be, seem to miss one of the anime's main points? I do agree about tone though and to that end an abrasive comment is an abrasive comment regardless of adding an
IMO or not. Tone itself can make a difference in how a message is received with or without acknowledging bias.