I’m not an English major. I probably will be at some point in my life, and I have some sort of intrinsic attraction to the act of looking beneath the surface, but that’s a different point entirely. What I’m trying to say is, I’m by no means a scholar on this topic: and frankly, the use of the word “criticism” in the post title was likely enough to give more than a few of you false hope when you saw it on Anime Nano.
However, the title reflects exactly what this is: a non-critical look at the act of literary criticism, and the way we apply it in the anime blogosphere.
It all began when I decided to go archive digging, starting with the well-known Cruel Angel Theses. Owen’s background in literature, as he stated himself, greatly influences the way he looks at – and subsequently writes about – anime; and having read many of his reviews, I now have a deeper understanding for the age-old theory of “show, not tell.” Reading is (as Owen himself has been known to preach) an integral part of writing, be it criticism or fiction, and it goes without saying that an amateur would learn much from reading the works of a more experienced individual. (And this isn’t to put Owen on a pedestal, per se – he just so happened to be the first in a list of many bloggers, most of which I simply haven’t gotten to yet.)
Anyway, having read one individual’s take on story and character development in various anime, I decided to do some reading on the fundamentals of criticism, and we all know where – in the blogosphere at least – to find that. The SuperFani writers, presumably lit majors of some form or the other, are probably your best bet when it comes to criticism of criticism (save for good old lelangir who has likely written about everything by now.) You can click that link whenever your brain is up to the task, and I trust in your archive digging skills, but Cuchlann’s Adventures in Criticism proved to be quite interesting, in addition to Pontifus’s conversation on Critic vs Creator. That was only a small sampling, of course, because a quick trip out of Super Fani might net you a few other posts like this one, which are worth reading even if you have to google Axiology.
And what about the theory of literary criticism itself? Surely the aniblogosphere didn’t invent the school of thought. It’s been around for ages, and it’s arguably as important as the creation of art itself.
But I digress. With the foundations laid out and the reading material provided (if you’re in the mood for more buffet-for-thought, try this, but don’t forget to note this as mentioned by Kaiserpingvin), it’s time to delve into the meat of this post: my take on criticism.
Relevant because it was found under Danbooru’s “reading” tag
In a nutshell, I suppose you could say that I support criticism. I can see myself entering the field at some point in time, and in all likelihood I’ll wind up studying it in a few years, so I have no reason to criticize (in the other, more commonly used meaning of the word) criticism.
That said, I can also understand the train of thought that excessive criticism doesn’t help anyone and hinders the enjoyment of the writer. I’ve long since believed that pure objectivity in ratings is a waste of time, since we’d all end up saying more or less the same thing, and I don’t think that anyone would benefit from the black-and-white “this is good, that is bad” outlook. However, as many writers even in our own sphere have already proven, a balance struck between objectivity and subjectivity is the key to both entertaining and educating.
Going back to my original inspiration for this post, there was never a moment while reading Cruel Angel Theses that I felt as if the writer was incorrect. I did disagree at times, for purely subjective reasons, but his use of subjective beliefs and objective reasonings were enough to make the reader (in this case, me) go “ah, that makes sense!”
Or to put it more formally, the act of arguing one’s opinion, which is by its very nature subjective, with the use of facts and objective statements to back up said opinion, is what creates a powerful and compelling review. “Clannad is better than Gurren Lagann because the characters have feelings” is no more productive than “Gurren Lagann is better than Clannad because it has giant robots,” but either argument, if fleshed out properly, can qualify as at least semi-useful criticism. Neither essay would be worth publishing and/or handing in to the writer’s university professor, but they’d both work within context; which, in this case, would be the anime blogosphere.
Relevant because I say it is
The long and short of it is that I believe strongly in the importance of criticism, and that a well written critical analysis – at least within this context – is both subjective and objective. I think Pontifus and his brother covered the topic extensively enough in the post that I linked, where the feelings should never be fully removed while criticising the art, but it also goes without saying that one shouldn’t write a thousand words on a forum that effectively sum up to “Shiori is cute so you should go watch Kanon.” Although I’m liable to do just that.
In any case, I’m using examples from the romance/moe genres intentionally: because I understand the inherent “flaws” that all anibloggers have toward the things that they like can indeed be seen as handicaps to their potential, but at the same time, those are the very “flaws” that make writing interesting. It wouldn’t accomplish much for a person to analyze the production values and animation quality of every show to air, or at least not for all of us to do that.
Of course, by no means am I implying that I’m a good writer – I’m sure many a critic has failed to heed their own advice – but understanding is the first step to improvement, and I think it’s important that all editorial writers take some time to contemplate why they write what they write and what makes it good or bad.
Whether or not criticism is an art form in itself, whether subjective opinions should be completely removed from an objective review, whether a critic should also be an artist and vice versa – those aren’t questions I hope to answer. Those are questions that professionals in the field have spent hundreds of years trying to answer, and will likely never come to a single, concrete conclusion.
But the way I see it, with relation to the anime blogosphere, criticism is a personal craft with various guidelines to abide to. As Owen mentioned in one of his earlier posts (while linking to a post from a blog that looks like it might be worth reading), one of the many distinctions between two equally qualified reviewers could be their appreciation for either the literary or the visual. Critic A might condemn/praise ef for its good/bad storyline and character development, and Critic B might do the same for its use of visual effects as an aid to – or a means of – storytelling. Would either of them be wrong? Assuming that they’re both equally skilled, then no, probably not. So long as neither of them scream “ef is good because Naru Nanao designed some of the characters,” or worse yet, “ef is good because I say so,” I’m willing to give them both the benefit of the doubt and read their opinions with an open mind.
Relevant because…oh screw it, you shouldn’t be complaining anyway
So at the end of the day, my conclusion is that we can write what we want in the blogosphere and call it “critical” so long as we abide by a few obvious rules, but I also encourage all of you to take an introspective look at your own writing style. You don’t have to ramble about it online like I did, but a bit of quality reading – or simply thinking - might benefit you more than you’d think. The fundamentals of any given art are just as important as improvising, and in a community with no rigid rules set by an outside force, it’s up to us to keep an eye out for one another and make sure we’re still making sense.
It goes without saying that the blogosphere is constantly changing, and there are times – like right now – where setbacks occur that cause grieving, but for every writer that leaves, I like to believe that a new one enters. I have faith in our community that we will continue to provoke discussion and debate (even debate like this), and that we will continue to learn about the medium of anime from doing so. However, I also encourage you to take a step back for a moment and think about what you’re doing. I started doing that myself recently, and from the archives of one and a half blogs, I’m already amazed at what I’ve found.
And if that’s the case, then who knows what will happen if we continue to contemplate our medium of communication? So long as we don’t fill the sphere with meta, I can only assume that it will be something amazing.
~ ETERNAL
つづく
