Ellen Baker’s Illustrator: “Keep It Clean!”
Bullet Girls 2 Goes At It From All Angles
Sword Art Online: Hollow Realization A Real Grind
Kashiwazaki Sena Cosplay Pure & Innocent
Koutetsujou no Kabaneri Immensely Gruesome
========================================================================
(The following is the setup and question of this thread)
In episode 13 of Hyouka (a show which I have only grown to love more and more as time has gone by) an interesting question/discussion was raised in the schools Manga-club, between Mayaka and her Nakoruru-cosplaying sempai.
Nakoruru was stating (in a very bitchy fashion) that selling a book of Manga reviews is a stupid idea, because reviewing Manga is a pointless endeavor. Bitch Nakoruru's main point was that there is no objective way of saying what quality work is or isn't, and that all measures of how good or how bad a work is all dependent upon subjectivity. And because there is no truly objective set of things that can judge a thing good or bad, she says to just read what you like, sit back and laugh. However, when prompted by Mayaka she says that there is such a thing as a masterpiece, and they are things that can withstand the test of time and can still be remembered.
Mayaka on the otherhand says the opposite. She states that there are objective measures on how to rate a work that can be universally applied, and that quality is inherent to the work in question, not to the reader's whims and desires. She then goes on to say that some works are just naturally better and are inherently good, whilst others are naturally poorer and inherently bad. She states that there is such a thing as good writing and bad writing and it goes beyond any personal subjectivity. When she brought up the subject of Masterpieces, she states that they are not works of fiction that simply withstand the test of time, but that works are "born" Masterpieces from the beginning, and that you know it when you see it.
So, which side do you fall on? Do you feel that quality in fiction is a totally subjective matter and that trying to set objective rules of measure is impossible at best and presumptuous at worst, or do you feel that there is such a thing as objective measures of quality and that subjective whims have no say in how good or bad a work is as opposed to a set of rules one must adhere to? Do you feel that Masterpieces are "born" and can be as new or as old as can be, or do you feel that they must be "created" or "grown" by withstanding the test of time and still managing to be readily remembered? Do you feel that reviewing fiction of any kind is a worthless endeavor, or do you feel that it has merit?
========================================================================
(The following is the response to my question)
When I first saw the scene, it became pretty obvious that what was happening (besides Nakoruru being a bitch and passive aggressively insulting Mayaka) was that this was just one form of the many conflicts that shows up in Type A vs. Type B Otaku discussions. However I think that the questions posed in that exchange were really at the heart of all rivalries between the 2 groups, and really, what makes an Otaku either Type A or Type B (I find it rather ironic that this is happening in a show animated by KyoAni, who have made some of the biggest Type B favorites as well as Hyouka itself having large Type B appeal. I had a similar feeling when watching OreImo with it's massive Type A/Type B dynamic that Kirino and Kuroneko have with the show itself having even larger Type B appeal). If this argument is simplified even more, it becomes the old "Think vs Feel" argument.
I myself, am a self-admited lover of things Moe and I love bishoujo. When Pokemon Crystal first came out and gave us the option of playing as a girl for the first time, I as a kid who was just barely approaching 10, picked Kris and I have not played as any of the male characters since and up to White. I tend to connect to female characters more easily than males and tend to find them more enjoyable, with a few exceptions. I love Lucky Star, K-ON and Azumanga Daioh, and it is rare that I meet a School Life SoL that I don't like. I believe that the most important job of fiction is to entertain, and that all else comes second, if all you want to do is ponder and wax poetic on philosophical matters, then write a self-help book.I am most definitely a Type B fan.
However, I don't agree with all of what Bitch Nakoruru said, nor with Mayaka. I do think that certain things are completely subjective, like art style and music. I maybe indifferent to the Beetles, and I may love Nujabes, but there is very little objectivity in those feelings of mine. I feel that animation quality by contrast is a more objective matter, and that there are some form of rules in order to do it right. However, when it comes to the integration of 2D and 3D Animation in one show, I feel that is more subjective. Which shows do it well and which shows do not? Is it even a good idea to begin with?
When it comes to Characters in fiction, I also feel that this is half way between objective an subjective. I do feel like there is some hazy form of ruleset in order to use a character trope well and to therefore have a well written character. However to what degree is a character well written or poorly written? Are certain character tropes inherently bad or is the hand that uses the trope bad? What archtypes can you not get enough of and which ones can you not stand? I don't feel there is any objective measure to answer these questions.
When it comes to story elements and how they are structured, the waters get even murkier. I think the ideas that Foreshadowing is generally good, Deus ex Machina are generally bad, and that following Dramatic Structure is generally a good thing of some kind, all have some level of objective measure behind them. However even these things are not without subjectivity. Some say that too much foreshadowing can weigh to heavily on a plot and will make it too constrained and lacking in an organic feeling. Some argue the severity of Deus ex Machina or say that in some situations they are not bad at all, that due to the circumstances at which it happened it just "felt right" at the moment or that it simply fit the situation. There is also argument whether certain moments are even Deus ex Machina at all. And as for the ideas of Dramatic Structure, some argue that it was designed for certain types of stories and should not be applied widely, or that adhering to it too much will result in the same problems that people who argue against too much Foreshadowing have.
I suppose at the end of the day, I find both arguments too black and white for the reality of the matter. I mostly think that how we judge fiction comes from culture, and it is therefore a learned trait as opposed to an inherent idea of good and poor work. Mayaka's argument suggests universal criteria for good and bad work that is widely applicable, and with the variation in us humans I find that not to be the case. However we do have some, if hazy, ideas that certain things can be judged and and idea of something being good or bad beyond our personal whims. The phrase "Guilty Pleasure" wouldn't exist without this idea. So I think that there are certain measures of objectivity within groups, cliques or communities that consume similar fiction and are within the same memespace. Within these smaller groups there exists ways to measure a work as good or bad that are generally objectively recognized by all within it. I don't think there is such a thing as true Objectivity as it is a form of absolute. I do however think there is group subjectivity, shared opinions within a small community of like-minded people who consume similar fiction that take the form of narrowly applied "soft rules."
So to the initial question that reviewing fiction is pointless, I don't think it is. Within the confines of group subjectivity, it is much easier and far more practical to judge a show by the set of "rules" that exist within that particular clique. In a sense, reviews that don't attempt to be "universally objective" I think will speak more easily to people. Then again when I watch Anime reviewers I do so because I find them entertaining, not because I honestly follow their advice, so I may not be the best source to begin with. Though I don't think that they should be applied too widely, as even within the group people could be aware of flaws in a show that should be "unforgivable", but like the work anyway for one reason or another. It could be that they are just forgiving or regard the work in question as a "Guilty Pleasure" but the result is the same: Rules and Criteria people believe in theory, but not in practice. But this does show that even if there are reviews, they don't always sway opinions even if they are agreed with, so there really is not much harm in them as Bitch Nakoruru might suggest.
Also as for what constitutes a Masterpiece, quite frankly I am not sure at this moment in time as I have never given it much though. I'm kinda doubtful of the term Masterpiece in the first place as it is a very absolute term, however I do know that I don't agree with Bitch Nakoruru's definition of it. I think that works that stand the test of time and are still readily remembered are best called Classics, not Masterpieces. If anything, I think that a Masterpiece is the combination of the work itself and the public dissection of it after the fact. So I agree more with Mayaka, that a Masterpiece (if it even is real or a true concept) is "born" one.
So, even though I am a Type B fan who believes that entertainment is first and foremost in fiction, I don't believe that fiction is 100% subjective (yet I feel it mostly is) nor do I feel that fiction is to be dictated by so called "objective" rules that have far less reach than they imply. A man is not an island, nor is he a borg drone. We are somewhere in the middle.
