Behind The Nihon Review

I was originally planning on writing about something else, but after the discussion that came out of the last post, this topic was too interesting to ignore. The last post was about my disagreements with some of the ratings handed out by my fellow reviewers, and trying to justify those disagreements. As happens with most discussions about subjective impressions (at least when rabid fanboys stay out of things), the final result appeared to be an unspoken consensus that the disagreements were minor and simply a matter of taste, and that we could all agreed to disagree. But, what surprised me was the direction the discussion took towards the end, and that issues were taken with Shadowmage‘s Code Geass R2 review not over what his opinion was, but rather how he had presented it. Ironically enough, there’s history behind this, as those who have been around here for awhile may remember.

A.H.
Debating how much I agree or disagree with each of your examples is always possible, but going back to your review: I do think one can say that the writing is inferior or subpar without having to insult anyone or anything.

This was probably the key quote from the discussion that took place in the last post and I do think A.H. has made a fair point here. The question is, did Shadowmage cross the line by suggesting that the writers were ignorant of basic storytelling techniques? On the one hand it does conform with his observations (as he saw them) but on the other hand it could be construed as a veiled insult of the writers’ knowledge. (Not so much “skill”, if we define “skill” as an ability to implement that knowledge. We, as reviewers, can only judge what we see, and if we accept Shadowmage‘s contention that the storytelling was poor, or at the very least inconsistent, as inevitably some won’t, then we can’t really say that the writers were all that skillful at putting together a story in this instance). This dilemma is fraught with mineholes, particularly for me, as I edited this review and it was my job to be the “filter” in this case.

And I have filtered things that have blatantly crossed the line before, just as my own reviews have been filtered for overly pointed comments in the (distant) past. There are two examples that immediately come to mind, one of which is a little too sensitive to discuss here. The other involved a review that Kuma wrote. Kuma‘s never been one to hide his disdain for the yaoi subculture, and while I’ve no problems with the occasional veiled objection, one time he submitted a review that was littered with some rather pointed and disparaging comments about yaoi fans. I reworded things, and made a few drastic cuts in some places (perhaps I went a tad over-the-top) and Kuma understandably wasn’t pleased, and he protested that I muted his contention and took the edge out of the review. Arguably he was right, and while there were aspects of that review that I could have handled better, I still think it did need to be toned down before being published.

Shadowmage‘s suggestions about the writers’ ignorance didn’t go to that extent, which is what makes it more difficult to moderate. I did think it was a strange thing to say (my own suggestion in the last blog post was that the writing wasn’t a consequence of anyone’s lack of knowledge as it was a genuine ambition to push boundaries and rewrite the rules of “good storytelling” that simply fell on its face), but I let it slide for a couple of reasons. The first is that, unlike yaoi fans, the writers of Code Geass R2 are unlikely to ever read our reviews (then again I can’t be sure yaoi fans do read our reviews). Yes, it doesn’t excuse the comments (assuming they need to be excused) and it is a rather unprofessional attitude to take. But I’m not going to deny that the targets of the supposed “insults” have an influence on my tolerance for them during the revision process.

The other reason for my tolerance relates back to the history that I hinted at in the opener. People may remember the panning that our site got back over a year ago (if memory serves) from cyanocry from Moe Imouto. One of the many points that he made was that our reviews were bland and resembled legalese. And while I didn’t quite agree with his extent, I thought there was a basis to those comments. I looked at my own reviews and realized that they had become a tad formulaic, and tad uninspired, as if they’d been spit out of an assembly line process. Shadowmage, ironically enough, took the opportunity to respond with his electric review of the first season of Code Geass, and it was at that point that I realized that there’s no resting on laurels for any reviewer on our site, and that the mark of a good writer is someone whose writing is engaging, and who constantly challenges themselves to write better. That means coming up with new metaphors, interesting puns, and evocative sentence structures while working within the rather restrictive format that we use on the site. It simultaneously demands consistency (in regards to what one says and the format we work within) and unconventionality (in regards to how it’s communicated). It’s not easy, and it’s so easy to fall into the trap of blurring the line between “review” and “report”. And keep in mind that we’re not exactly proffessionall writers’s eeither.

So, as far as I’m concerned, the way the reviewers on our site approach this delicate balance between “professional”, yet stale diction and engaging, yet sensationalist assertion is up to the reviewers themselves. I, as an editor, set the boundaries. If a review is too dry, unimaginative, and bland, I’ll say so. If it’s over-the-top and offensive, I’ll make cuts. But, if I had a preference, it’s certainly for writing that’s interesting, colourful, engaging and, if possible, unconventional (while still conforming to the basic format and style of our reviews). That’s not easy, especially given the bounds that we work within. And I’ve never forgotten that when reviewers submit to our site, they do so as a service. I’ve never rejected a review because it’s too “bland”. What incentive would a reviewer have to keep submitting reviews if I rejected their work because it was “bland”. Criticism during the editing process needs to be handled very carefully. These are people I’m working with, not review writing machines. They do this because it benefits them and (hopefully) their readers, not because it benefits me or the site. Thankfully the reviewers that we have handle criticism very well. But, on the other hand, I hope all our reviewers are constantly making an effort to steadily improve their writing with each new review. Attempting to be more engaging is a part of that. Say what you will about Shadowmage‘s barb, he got his point across.