Examining anime criticism

As I strive to be an open-minded anime fan, I’m reminded time and time again that many things simply boil down to personal taste; that no matter how much I think a certain anime is great or another one is terrible, there will always be fans who feel completely different from me and have their own valid reasons for it. Inspired by posts from a couple of other bloggers, I felt like examining the concept of criticism within anime fandom specifically…

Bobduh over on his blog Wrong Every Time brought up a similar basis for judging anime that I actually talked about in a post from a year ago, which is the idea that an anime is good if it meets its own expectations, or succeeds in its goals as Bobduh describes it. Since completely unbiased criticism is impossible, he says he tries “to separate my own personal preferences in art from my evaluation of the show’s ability to succeed in what it is trying to do.” For example, rather than say an anime is somehow objectively bad because it’s a slice-of-life moe show with fan service and you find those terribly boring and uncomfortable to watch, take a step back and look at it in terms of the genre it’s in and whether it succeeded in being worthwhile for the story and target audience it has. Of course, what an anime’s goal exactly is and whether it achieves that goal in the end is still something that can be debated, but it is a good place to start in terms of making your criticism more valid to more people besides those who already share the same tastes as you.

It always fascinates me how two anime fans I may know whose tastes in anime aren’t that different and they may even share a favorite series or two, can feel completely different about one anime, with one person hating it and the other loving it. I’ve thought about why this is so and Bobduh spells it out quite well. Because many people don’t criticize anime with the “how well is it succeeding in its goal?” idea in mind, they fall back on the usual criticism of, as Bobduh put it, “how well is it articulating my media preferences?” I agree with him that these people aren’t wrong to judge anime this way, as nothing’s written in stone as far as the proper way to view an anime. I myself tend to mix the two when I review anime, looking at the show from a holistic perspective and how well it succeeded in the goals of its writing, as well as throwing in random personal preferences that heightened or hindered my enjoyment, such as nice character designs (heightened) or too much fan service (hindered). But it’s important to distinguish between the two, since there’s a difference between diligent criticism and simple opinion-stating. A lot of anime fans favor the latter view of criticizing an anime because it didn’t match their own personal preferences for stories, which again is not wrong, but it can cause problems when trying to pass it off as thought-out criticism. What happens then, as Bobduh describes, is that “things like ‘strongly developed characters,’ ‘a well-articulated thematic throughline,’ ‘a fully realized world,’ and ‘a propulsive central narrative’ are all valid goals, and most good shows devote their screen-time resources to only a few of those goals in order to maintain cohesion and tell a tight and fully-realized story, and nitpicking often comes about when a show focused on theme with a side of character runs into a critic focused on worldbuilding with a side of central narrative, or any other hypothetical mismatch.”

This goes back to what I previously brought up about how some anime fans I know love a certain show while others hate it. Sword Art Online is a favorite example for these kinds of discussions and I’m going to use it again, since I actually do know people who like it and see little wrong with it, and people who hate it and see everything wrong with it. I would explain why I understand both sides, but Bobduh says it better: “Sword Art Online was a very popular show, but critics in general panned it for being an ineptly written power fantasy. Does this mean the people who liked it were ‘wrong?’ No – many of them liked it because it was a power fantasy. This is often what is meant by ‘pandering’ or ‘fanservice’ – a show making choices that make its audience more happy at the expense of its value as a piece of artistically interesting or incisive television. Shows can entertain and fulfill the expectations of audiences for the very same reasons they’re criticized when evaluated according to classic artistic metrics of character writing, storytelling, thematic exploration, etc.” SAO was heavily promoted at this past Anime Expo, with hundreds or even thousands of attendees eagerly playing with the newly released SAO Weiss Schwarz cards and waiting in line to see the English dub premiere. Are they all morons for liking such a “bad” anime? Of course not (well, maybe some are morons, but for other reasons). The people I personally know who like SAO enjoy power fantasy adventure stories and don’t care to thoroughly examine their entertainment with a critical eye, thus they like just about every anime that fulfills that want. And the people I know who dislike SAO are indeed critical and refined with their anime tastes, most of them being bloggers, and make it a hobby to rate the anime they watch against certain standards of quality. Neither way of viewing anime is more right or wrong, but I think if one really wanted to criticize SAO, they should also look at it in terms of its own goals and the audience it’s successful with.

The general consensus on SAO could relate back to an aspect of anime criticism another blogger brought up. In a post on his blog She’s Lost Control, TimeEnforcerAnubis discusses how Western fans criticize anime, particularly the moe and fan service types, with an unhealthy dose of ethnocentrism. They often call such anime “sexist” or “pedophilic” and harshly criticize them based on those sentiments without even accounting for the Japanese culture behind them or the authors’ intentions when they created the series. Using Strike Witches as an example, TimeEnforcerAnubis states “a common criticism of Strike Witches is that it’s ‘sexist’ and ‘misogynistic.’ Is it really fair to accuse its creators of sexism and misogyny, when that was never their intention? I really doubt Humikane Shimada was anticipating having his brainchild called out by Western critics for some really serious offenses when he created the illustrations that would go on to form the basis of Strike Witches.” To use a series I’m familiar with, a lot of (Western) fans have similar feelings of aversion to OreImo, calling it pedophilic and stripping it of any worth because of its incest themes. But did creator Tsukasa Fushimi intend to make it just disgusting fluff to please creepy otaku, or did he write the narrative and characters with dignity, adding fan service perhaps to appeal to a certain audience, but still wanting to incorporate sincere themes about the human condition by telling a story about the troubles of being a closet otaku and how estranged love can exist between siblings, however off-putting it is? Even though I too don’t care for incest and fan service in my anime, and neither I nor anyone else can go inside Fushimi’s mind and know exactly what he intended, having watched all of OreImo and thinking about the culture it hails from, I can’t help but think it’s an overall worthwhile story.

But even if an anime succeeded in its goals and had things you liked about it, what if it had flaws too? How many flaws does it take to turn an otherwise good anime into a bad one? Does just one big flaw ruin it or many small ones? Famous Internet celebrity the Nostalgia Critic made a great editorial video called “Is it Right to Nitpick?,” looking at what things we tend to criticize more than others and what kinds of flaws it takes for a movie to be considered bad. This can relate back to any media work actually, including anime. The idea he brings up is that every movie (or anime) has mistakes, but it only becomes bad when it fails to distract us from those mistakes. Even some of the most praised and popular works like Harry Potter and Star Wars have some major story flaws, but the reason most people can forgive them is because they excel in enough of their other aspects to overpower the flaws. Same thing with the wildly popular My Little Pony: FiM, with dedicated fans of the series being the ones to point out the tons of mistakes in each episode. Likewise, all the most praised anime from Evangelion to Madoka Magica have their share of flaws, but the idea is that everything else about them was so good and investing enough that they distracted us from the flaws, and that’s the mark of something good. A lesser anime, say the recently ended Karneval, did not have an engaging enough story or compelling characters to distract me from its plot holes and vaguely defined setting, which was why I criticized it in my review. So it’s not so much the amount of flaws an anime has, but whether everything else about it made up for them.

To wrap things up, there’s ultimately no truly right or wrong way to criticize anime, or even any obligation to criticize it at all. For the people I know who enjoy SAO and other “flawed” anime for what they are and don’t think hard about them beyond enjoying their wish-fulfilling fare, there’s nothing wrong with that. Not everyone needs to be a critic with the entertainment they watch and not everyone should. But for those like me who enjoy looking at the anime they watch on a deeper level, the ideas I talked about in this post and drew on from others are what I feel are ways to make your criticism more profound =)

No Comments… read them or add your own.

  1. Kai says:

    Well put, and not too long at all. I thought it would be longer from your tweet!

    I agree with you and Bobduh about judging an anime based on it’s own merits. And if I know for a fact that an anime is a particular genre I’m not a fan of, I simply don’t watch it. Not being an anime critic/blogger, I can afford to do that!

    But I’m always willing to step outside my comfort zone if something is intriguing enough or, let’s be honest, I’m bored enough.

    But I’m fully capable of enjoying something that is awful. Because the one goal I search for when I watch new shows, read new books, or play new games is entertainment. It doesn’t have to be a masterpiece for it to be entertaining. Yeah, there are levels. I like Haruhi more than I like Madoka. I like Shana more than I like Fairy Tail, I like Haibane Renmei more than No. 6, and so on and so forth. But if it’s entertaining for me, regardless of why, I’m satisfied there.

    Elfen Lied is a good example for this. I think the only people I personally know who enjoy it are immature and/or new to anime and younger (17-20s). I know it’s chock full of cliches and overdone gore and blah blah blah. But I sincerely enjoyed it. A lot! Because it was entertaining. Because I’m not jaded and looking for something to criticize. Or whatever makes the angry people tick.

    I’m not a big thinker, I’m just a regular fella. But I feel like this attitude so many people have, to immediately criticize the smallest flaws and blow them up, is part of the bigger problem of apathy that seems to be sweeping current culture (American, I’m not an expert in any other) . Like if you get too interested or excited for anything, suddenly you are labeled a “nerd”. Unless it’s whatever sport is in season, according to folks I work with. Heh.

    So people have to craft this careful “I’m enjoying it ironically” or “Nothing fazes me anymore.” attitude. I notice it a lot in my work, where people who get excited about things are often reflexively told to “calm down” (me being no exception!), even without a raised voice, or talking fast, or any of the telltale signs of excitement.

    Like if you scratch beneath the surface of anything too much, suddenly that’s too much interest or knowledge and uncool. I dunno, I’m rambling, I just woke up. But good post. ^_^ I wish more people judged anime based off it’s own merits and what it expected to do, and left personal opinions for the bylines.

    • Yumeka says:

      There are few anime genres besides ecchi/hentai that I won’t watch, though of course I have my share of ones I tend to avoid, like yaoi and sports. But if I hear good things about such a series I’ll simply watch it with an open mind and keep in mind its genre, target audience, and my own personal bias.

      I can only enjoy something I know is awful if it’s in a parody, or if I’m watching it with someone and we’re making fun of it as we watch or something. I’m very serious and down-to-earth when it comes to anime so I guess it’s hard for me to watch them with the kind of detached, cynical attitude it may require to enjoy an awful one =P And it’s been about 7 years since I watched Elfen Lied so I don’t remember it being full of cliches (the gore I remember XD) I wonder how my opinion of it will have changed if I watched again.

      That’s a really good point you brought up about apathy (in America). We literally have access to all the information about anything we can ever dream of, and at the same time we have so many things at our disposal to distract us from information and keep us in our little world (just take a look at how many hours a day the average person spends with their eyes on a cell phone). And if anyone is passionate enough to study all the information about something, as you said, they’re labeled as a “nerd.” Sadly ironic =/

  2. The only think sort of can’t agree with is the temptation to lump people into two categories: people who think and criticize, and people who don’t think and just enjoy. I know that’s an over-simplification of the argument to a degree (and it’s not like you were intending it in that way), but it’s the sort of subtle tone that poisons discourse and takes the focus away from the earlier point in your post about “objective flaws” versus “subjective opinion”.*

    Personally, I’m actually not someone who necessarily likes “power fantasy adventure stories” in general (pretty hit-and-miss for me), and yet I loved SAO. And perhaps ironically to the critics who think the show is so “brain dead”, the reason I loved it is precisely because it posed so many interesting questions and explored so many interesting concepts. It was fun to *think about* the show, even while I allowed myself to be swayed by the emotions involved as well. I felt similarly about OreImo, which in particularly is getting panned at the moment for the supposedly “stupid” writing at the end (no spoilers). And yet, here too, I find that there’s actually a lot more to think about in what was portrayed if you’re willing to look beneath the surface, but many have already decided that the way the plot plays out on the surface (with all its theatrics) means that there isn’t something more subtle underneath.**

    This isn’t to say that I can’t understand the points the “critics” make; these shows and many others that I’ve enjoyed have flaws when you measure them by those particular standards. But I think there’s a temptation to equate this sort of literary criticism with “thinking” itself, and I just can’t fully agree. I’ve seen people rail about an anime for all its objective flaws and supposed failures, but if you ask them to identify the main themes and the way they were developed throughout the story, they have nothing to offer, because they have not actually *thought about the work*. The basis for intelligent discussion has to be applying yourself to try to sincerely understand the topic and its various nuances and perspectives. Many people use the presence of “flaws” to excuse their brains, as if a writer who commits these “sins” can’t possibly have anything interesting or complex to communicate. In doing so, they often miss the forest for the trees, and their criticism comes across as disconnected or misguided to those who are able to see through those issues and appreciate the more-vibrant core of the work.

    There’s still a reason critics focus on what they do: in a world where all stories have potentially interesting ideas and themes to explore, you want some way of filtering through and picking those that are able to communicate their ideas most effectively. Discussing literary flaws is really exposing the barriers to communication that may prevent the viewer/reader from appreciating/understanding what the author wants to say. (And indeed, if the barriers are too high, they may have prevented the critic from understanding the work.) But these barriers do not affect everyone equally, and we shouldn’t be too quick to assume that arguably-rough craftsmanship means that the product on the whole is without artistic or literary merit, or that only those who are pointing out those barriers (“flaws”) are looking at the anime they watch on a deeper level.

    * I put this asterisk because there’s a rather big point of confusion in this discussion. Many people assume that what a critic should do is try to help the potential target audience for a work know if something is worth their time, and so should be considerate of the goals/aims of the work when they review/criticize. But I think many critics rather see their role as simply to provide their opinions about the work, based on their being experienced and knowledgeable about the subject. They have some innate appreciation for the variety of the medium and the various target audiences, but there are still some things they plain dislike and find distasteful, and this will often come out in their writing. So perhaps it is better to think of all reviews/critiques as opinion pieces, with each one being an expression of the author’s own perspective. Over time you get to know the author and their preferences/tastes, and then can understand how your own preferences align (or don’t align) to their own.

    ** It’s by falling into this sort of trap that people can tend to over-simplify and generalize other issues, like calling thing “sexist” or “pedophilic” or whatever else, which often do not make as much sense upon a closer examination of the context. When you’ve already come to the conclusion that the writing is “flawed”, it’s easier to assume that all portrayals within are only surface-deep and so deserve the labels affixed to them.

    • Cytrus says:

      There’s a saying that a story is not what a writer writes or what a reader reads, but what the two of them create together. Like relentlessflame, I often see people who would like to be perceived as “the thinkers” criticizing an anime for lack of depth when fans of the show find no difficulty in pointing out the deeper themes and ideas behind it.

    • Yumeka says:

      Yes, I did not intend to divide everyone into “people who think and criticize” and “people who don’t think and just enjoy.” Of course people can think about something and enjoy it even if they discover flaws by doing so, or even enjoy it more as a result of that thinking. I know I do the latter all the time with my favorite series that give a lot to think about, like Haruhi and Evangelion. But usually thinking leads to examining details which then leads to finding flaws. Doesn’t mean you still can’t enjoy the work, and you may even enjoy it more than someone who just watches it on a casual level and doesn’t really think about anything deeper in it. Those two types of people are simply the two ends of the spectrum, so it was easier to make my points. But of course I acknowledge that there are tons of variations in between. Sorry if it came off as overgeneralizing and leading away from the original point.

      And your asterisk point about what it means to be a critic is true too. A critical review is still an opinion. Maybe what separates it from a “plain” opinion is that the author really tries to reason out their view and cite examples from the work in question. Again, it’s still an opinion, but with more weight than just saying “I hated this” or “I loved this.” Sorry again if I implied otherwise ^^,,,

      I think we’re on the same page with SAO and OreImo though. I too thought SAO brought up compelling themes about virtual game technology. Same thing with the themes of being an otaku, incest, and unrequited love in OreImo. What you said about people using a show’s flaws to completely override the fact that the creator may have had something worthwhile to say in the work, was an excellent point. Even if the show is about a touchy subject like incest or if some characters are perverted (which leads to fan service scenes), that doesn’t mean the work can’t say anything substantial and even deep about these things, since they’re a part of real life too. That’s probably why I don’t drop anime very often and always have at least something good to say about each one (so far, LOL) – even if there’s a lot of things I don’t like, I try to look for anything good in it or if there’s anything worthwhile about life and humanity that the creator is trying to convey. I try to keep that “glass half full” perspective ;)

  3. Froggykun says:

    Like you and Bobduh, I think anime should be approached on its terms, but I think there’s a difference between a critic writing a review as a recommendation for other fans and a critic writing a review as a serious attempt to understand and interpret it for himself. When I’m just casually browsing review websites and blogs, the former is much easier to deal with, especially if I’m familiar with the author’s tastes. There’s really nothing wrong with a completely personal opinion – the reader just needs to read those reviews with a critical eye. It’s when reviews feign at objectivity that annoy me.

    I’m in full agreement with relentlessflame and Cytrus in that art is something that both the writer and the consumer create together. You get from it what you put in. So I think ideally reviews should be honest. But they shouldn’t start with the expression of an opinion but be an exploration of WHY these impressions have been made. I think it’s these kinds of critiques, that really dig down to the heart of not only what the story was trying to do but how it resonates, that tell us more about the anime itself, and not the reviewer.

    • Yumeka says:

      Heh, I don’t think I’ve ever written a review that was strictly to be a recommendation. They pretty much follow the pattern of “here’s what I thought about the whole series and why,” aimed at people who have seen the series too (since I don’t hold back with spoilers). But I know some people who didn’t watch the series in question read my reviews, so sometimes I’ll throw in a light recommendation at the end, like “if you like slapstick comedy, you’ll enjoy this show.” I also prefer reading these types of reviews too, since I only like reading reviews of anime I’ve already seen and want to know what the author thought of this or that.

      I agree that the WHY part of a review is very important. We can all easily say if we like or didn’t like something that we watch, but going into why it resonated that way explores the work on a new level and in turn would help anyone reading the review understand it better.

  4. Toonleap says:

    I think my comment is the shortest one here, jeje…Nice post. Hope We can read your review on the last episodes of Oreimo now that you mentioned it on this post.

  5. Kal says:

    Nicely written, and I totally agree. There is no right or wrong way to criticize something. There are no right or wrong fans, there is not even any good or bad anime. It is all subjective, and what may be good for some, may be bad for others. I believe I mentioned it before, but I try to be open minded as well, and try to get in the writers shoes to understand what he was trying to portray. In many cases, just looking at it like that, may give us a different perspective.

    It’s funny how this was posted today, I just watched the last 3 episodes of Oreimo yesterday, and I watching the picture you chose, I’m guessing it’s likely related to that. I would love to see a final review by you on Oreimo. To me it was shocking, disquieting, even a bit disgusting in some parts, but I really liked it in the end, and loved how it took risks and boarded a subject that is considered a terrible taboo in almost all the world. I love when anime expands frontiers, but I can probably see a lot of criticism coming in against that show…

    Anyway, loved this post, I agree with it, and your efforts to try to keep an open point of view is probably what keeps me coming back to your blog. Well done.

    • Yumeka says:

      Thanks ^_^ And yes, everything is at the end of the day subjective. But as I always say, anime is meant to be enjoyed, so I like to go into every one I watch with an open mind and try to understand what good was intended from it.

      Glad to hear you liked the OreImo finale and I’ll try to get my thoughts on it written up when I do my next seasonal review post.

  6. Mikoto says:

    Taste is certainly subjective, I can certainly agree. Timeenforceranubis’ post beings up a good point about looking too deep into “controversial” topics without really knowing the culture behind it. It’s similar to how some people claim Ganguro girls, Mr. Popo, the Pokemon Rougela/Jynx, and generally the “black faces” used in anime are “racist” without really understanding the background behind it. All that the general Japanese public understands of African/African American culture is purely taken from media. Ganguro girls in particular emulate the look of being black because they idealize the appearance… that isn’t “racism”.

    But I digress. tl;dr Sometimes people blow one small aspect of a show out of proportion, and fail to even pay attention to any other redeeming quality.

    Criticism seems to be best when the critic does the research and limits his/her criticism within the boundaries of what you mentioned in your post (such as genre, writer’s vision, etc.). I’m somewhat in-between. I look at every anime I watch with a critical eye, and I often admit that a series I enjoy may not be as good as how I like it. I feel that my opinions as an anime fan will be taken more seriously, in this regard. I’m also an avid supporter of writers doing whatever they want with their stories (and not stepping all over a story established by another writer), but that doesn’t change the fact that sometimes I feel that their “vision” could have been better if certain qualities were done alternatively and handled differently.

    • Yumeka says:

      Excellent example with the Ganguro girls. I couldn’t have said it better XD

      As you mentioned, I try to keep my criticism within things I can cite in the actual show and its genre, etc,. But I’ll make it clear if something is just plain personal taste. I tend to say that a certain scene was cool or sweet or something like that, which is obviously just opinion =P But if I’m pointing out something big in the series, like a problem I had or why I really liked it, I’ll want to give examples and further exploration.

  7. Murazrai says:

    Speaking of reviews that thrash anime just because of their genre, this also happens on shows aimed for children, but my watching experience with them proved to me that this is not necessarily true. Thankfully I am not alone on this matter.

    Also, whether a show is good or not depends heavily on how we approach the show itself. There are anime that managed to shift out its actual genre right in the initial episodes and can caught viewers and critics off-guard. Some might be turned off and drop the show, but others might liking what it actually is and stick to the end. I belong to the latter.

    Ultimately, we should be open minded and respectful about how others watch and review shows.

    • Yumeka says:

      Kids anime comes under a lot of criticism from Western fans, especially long shonen series like Naruto where one can’t see their good aspects easily because there are so many episodes, but I actually think moe/harem/ecchi anime get a lot more criticism for their genre. I think it’s because there’s a lot of good Western kids entertainment that adults enjoy too, such as Disney movies, but there’s no equivalent to moe and similar anime in the West, so it’s more “weird” to anyone not familiar with Japanese culture.

      I agree that a lot of anime can shift gears in their story and theme in later episodes, Haruhi and Madoka Magica being good examples. So unless the early episodes of an anime were just too boring, I try to stick with them to the end too.

  8. jimmy says:

    Interesting. I judge most anime by roughly the same relatively impartial criteria, and try to factor in their intent/purpose in a useful and relevant manner. If this means Serial Experiments Lain gets a higher rating for me than succeeding at conveying a complex, fascinating story (and in no small part for having Proust references and girls in adorable bear pyjamas) than Pico to Chico does for succeeding equally at creating a visually-inventive, well-directed fantasy of an idyllic youth comprising homosexual childhood encounters, then maybe it means I think the cyperpunk genre is just better than the otokonoko one. I still wouldn’t rate the plot of a show that deliberately glosses over the illogical logistics of its plot – say, Strike Witches – as harshly as one that makes no effort to do so – say, Aria the Scarlet Ammo. Taking itself seriously is a sure way to worsen for a stupid show to worsen my opinion of it. I firmly believe that nonsensical elements can be embedded into a show if done well. A great recent example of this was Girls und Panzer, which had a ludicrous concept (tank combat is an institutionalised sport and they use live ammo). The elements it took seriously were its identity as an archetypal sports show, its military otaku elements, the focus of its story and development of its main characters.

    Regarding Oreimo: I do feel that it would be meaningless to criticise the series based on aversion to incest elements. I enjoyed the series and its final central romance, but by the end of it I wasn’t convinced it was particularly good or well written outside of its keen eye for humour. A point that was made to me recently that I hadn’t thought of was that by the end Kyousuke was bearing every burden in what was supposed to be a proper relationship. When he was being a good friend/brother and helping people, that made sense and he made a good packhorse. When it came to telling a romance, though, he was in much the same position in what should have been a mutually-supportive relationship. This isn’t a complaint you could really level against a hentai, but in a series trying to present a drama and a real relationship it feels cheap.

    Regarding SOA: I ignored the non-existent OH&S procedures necessary to set up the story and instead gave the series a low grade for being unconvincing in character and relationships, being disconnected and having illogical plot resolutions. I’d be lying to myself if I’d rated it any higher. That Kirito was a power fantasy, as you said, didn’t bother me; that his character didn’t seem consistent and that he waltzed through the plot outside of failing at things either completely beyond his control or divorced of a real sense of responsibility did. That the romance was idealised and didn’t involve any killing didn’t bother me; that it came after about four interactions, each with a jarringly different dynamic, and that it distracted the show even further from its already-marginalised plot did.

    I don’t factor personal enjoyment into my rating of a title. Rather, I’m more likely to enjoy it if I think it’s good (and probably the reverse is true, too). I think really it’s what occurs to me to criticise or praise about a show, what strikes me as important or worth thinking about. And then when I find good things I look for bad things and vice versa to provide a fairer assessment.

    • I’m pretty sure that everyone is more likely to enjoy things they think are good, but the way they measure the importance of elements differs. And in that sense, your rating of titles is fundamentally subjective (based on your personal enjoyment), even if you think you think you’re trying to be “objective” and see things from both sides. And actually I think that’s okay!

      For example, you mentioned that you found the development of the plot/romance in SAO jarring/disconnected, but this didn’t personally bother me very much because I found enough details within the narrative to fill in the important gaps (so it felt like they were only showing us the scenes that mattered most, not that they were the only ones that existed). So while I can recognize that it may have been nice to show more, I didn’t weigh that factor very heavily in my assessment, even though you did. The same could apply to your OreImo comment; I didn’t expect the development you did because I feel like it’d be against the personality of the characters even if their relationship status evolved, so I wouldn’t hold that against it. So if your final rating is heavily-impacted by those factors that hurt your own enjoyment, then your rating would be significantly different than my own. I think that I’m still a fairly astute person able to detect problems and flaws, but I just don’t weigh them the same way.

      Honestly, I’d prefer if people *would* just rate things based on their personal enjoyment (in light of realistic expectations), and then still try to back that up using evidence from the work; I’m not convinced that “Goodness” is really much more than a scholarly attempt to distil enjoyment into patterns in the first place. The attempt to divorce the two results in all sorts of odd rationalizations that seem like little more than verbal exercises to deflect attention away from the inherent subjectivity of opinion and enjoyment.

    • Yumeka says:

      Good point in your first paragraph about how two shows we believe are equally good can still get different ratings because we simply find one of their genres or themes better than the other. That reminds me of another point Bobduh brought up in his post that even if we judge anime by how well they achieve their goal, not all goals are equal. So even if, for example, we think a show like OreImo accomplished its goal for a harem anime and Evangelion did for a psychological mecha thriller, the latter’s goal was simply grander and that’s what makes it a better anime (just an example as not everyone likes Eva or dislikes OreImo of course).

      I tend to enjoy shows that I think are good, but not always. Sometimes I’ll know something is good in terms of story and writing, Akira for example, but on a personal level I don’t enjoy watching it or it doesn’t click with me for whatever reason. Likewise, there are a lot of shows I love for personal reasons that I don’t think are good in terms of writing and artistic merit, like Pokemon =P So a lot also depends on what you’re looking for besides just “goodness.”

  9. chikorita157 says:

    I think the degrees of criticism depends on people’s tastes and interest. As you mentioned with people nitpicking at every aspect, I think it has to do with not only tastes, but also the differences in cultural values such as the West focusing more on violence. However, I don’t think people shouldn’t be too overcritical about fanservice when shows are geared towards the Japanese audience. Even with it’s flaws, there are always some good points of the show. For instance, while I had mixed feelings for the second season of Ore no Imouto as the author basically shafted all the girls, while it’s expected, I did enjoy some moments of the show.

    As for the accusation of sexism and misogynistic just because a girl is wearing a skimpy outfit, I don’t think its fair for the fact that both genders can be stereotypically portrayed. As mentioned in my recent editorial whether or not video games are sexist, I felt that the things radical feminists are accusing sexist isn’t necessarily so and that we are seeing more capable female characters and choices to play as one. This is why I find people like Anita Sarkeesian rather annoying since they are being overcritical and nitpicking every possible thing as sexist when it’s clear that she didn’t play the games and complaining about things which people find not a problem at all.

    At the end of the day, I think people are going to have different opinions as people will have different tastes. I think people are entitled to their opinions. As for me, I rarely overcritical and usually review shows in a lenient manner, unless I didn’t enjoy them or I find them extremely flawed.

    • Yumeka says:

      Definitely thinking about a show’s culture is essential when criticizing it. Japan’s obsession with cute girls doesn’t mean everyone is a pedophile. We actually touched on this a bit in one of my Japanese history classes in college about a cultural fascination with the purity and innocence of “shojo” (young girls), and of course there’s Japan’s general love for cute things too. Sure there are some creeps who jerk off to fan service in anime (but better that than raping real girls right?), but stuff like that exists in all cultures really. There are tons of great anime with compelling themes that feature cute girls and fan service sometimes, but it doesn’t mean the creators are all a bunch of sexist pedophiles.

  10. NFH says:

    >” critics in general panned it for being an ineptly written power fantasy.”

    No, SAO wasn’t panned by “critics in general” at all. In fact, it was awarded at the Tokyo International Anime Fair, and even professional Western reviewers like the likes of Kotaku liked it. The only people who panned SAO are a very vocal minority of haters in the Western fandom. For example, just look at the series score stats at MAL, the vast majority of users there not just liked, they LOVED SAO. And that SAO is hated by this vocal minority is no surprise, after all, ALL popular series are to be hated if you want to show you are “above the hype” and thus a “critic”. No surprise here.

  11. Kai says:

    When there is love, there is hate (lol).

    Despite my joking demeanor, the above does hold true for quite a number of mainstream anime, SAO being the prime example. If an anime achieved a love-hate status, it is on it’s way to fame. The worst kind of anime are those we feel extremely indifferent about it. Indeed, our own judgement are always subjective, not everyone possess the same opinions, one may like it while some may hate it. I do agree that it’s important to keep an open-mind. Not to criticize an anime just because it’s ecchi/harem or plotless cute girls doing cute things, and always compare fairly. For example, the aforementioned plotless anime, I feel that it is unfair to compare it to anime with heavy, compelling plots and say the latter is obviously better just because the former doesn’t have a plot.

  12. jesse says:

    thanks for writing. this is a topic i’m also interested in. although i’m seeing things differently in some ways. for instance, not all criticism is opinion. at least in the traditional sense a critic is also a historian and a philosopher of the medium. and it’s not uncommon now for critics to also be impassioned fans of the content they’re reading. so good criticism can look at a creation and examine it in different contexts, carefully looking at the creators, the influences, the design, story techniques, production techniques, political/cultural climate as well as weigh in with personal anecdotes or suppositions, sometimes assertions on how various parts of a creation are operating. i’m not sure how much criticism like this actually exists in the realms of anime but i would be very interested to read it. or maybe one day write it.

  13. I agree with the first paragraph so much! One message would like to give is that many people don’t realize that no matter what those who are part of anime criticism would always fall into the patter of biases either for strong story narrative or strong character development, as examples. It is unavoidable and the best game plans is to secretly disclose while you review without being so obvious. Above all else be sure to give good reasoning toward your for or against an anime. Reasoning is everything.

Leave a Comment

*