I want to spend a little bit of time discussing a topic that is very close to my heart - reviewing. Honestly, I'm perfectly aware I'm not an authority on this topic. My reviews are rarely longer than a mere 3000 words, I don't really have a readership who isn't myself and I'll never review professionally. I'm OK with all of these factors, but I want to state these outright. This is the opinion of a consumer in the industry of reviewing and not a producer, or at the very most an extreme amateur. For the views, if only in passing, by those more involved with the production of reviews, there is a video by Chris Franklin (AKA Campster) here which touches on some themes I want to discuss (and also inspired this post) and here is a post by the music reviewer Todd Nathanson (much better known as Todd In The Shadows) discussing several important parts of what it means to be a critic.
Now, I'll continue with my uninformed, opinionated ranting. The question I want to examine is "Do positive/negative reviews have inherently less value than the other?"
My short answer is no. I consume a great deal of variety in reviews, but I rarely, if ever, will disregard a review or a series of reviews or a reviewer just because they either love or hate their discussed medium.
Let me flesh that out a little more. Loving or hating a topic is really not a problem with me. Admittedly, it is much easier to squeeze comedy material out of hating a particular topic, as the success of Nostalgia Critic and Zero Punctuation have proven, but it also risks going just a little too far. I find the overly mean-spirited and dismissive reviews of Mark Mues occasionally distasteful, and I've never really found the immature overly disgusting bile-fueled reviews of the Angry Video Game Nerd to my tastes (although I can sort of see the appeal). This is a one way street. I am yet to see a positive review err too far on the "It's good. Just 'cause." side of the scale, which some negative reviews seem to do. What can be gained by the comedic value of hate can easily be undone with a lack of analysis or explanation.
I can live without comedy in my reviews. Sure, when I first started watching Nostalgia Critic several years ago, I was hesitant to branch out into watching other contributors on TGWTG because I couldn't see myself enjoying more analytical reviews with less comedy. But now I can't imagine limiting myself like that again.
The most important part of a review is education. I don't mean undeniably true fact, I call learning people's individual opinions or experiences educational too. I also don't claim comedy has no place in reviews, but it's more a side dish for me.
Let's look at some examples. Todd in the Shadows is a perfect example. Todd (yes, I did try to abbreviate the title before realising hat it spelt) has, on TGWTG and Chez Apocalypse at least, a back catalog filled with negative analysis of what he sees as a poor quality offerings by a good medium, like most TGWTG reviews. The difference can be seen in the series "One Hit Wonderland", looking at the full careers of One-Hit Wonders. These musicians can be good, bad or anywhere in between and they all get the same semi-comedic analysis. Whether Todd likes or dislikes the group, the reviews do not radically vary in quality, showing that a "good" review does not hinge upon whether the review is positive or negative.
This seems to be the case with most of my favourite reviewers. I don't care if they love or hate it, I just want to know why, a little about the topic and come away knowing a little more than I did before. Look at the reviewers I've watched just today.
Campster, of Errant Signal, analysing both videogames and academic interpretations emerging from videogames. Although he looks at things he both likes and dislikes, the pull of the episode.
Cecil Trachenburg, of Good Bad Flicks, who is possibly the biggest, most forgiving fan of movies I've ever seen. He absolutely love every film he talks about, albeit often in an, as the name suggests, so bad it's good way. More a comedy than analysis show for the most part, but still a fan of his topics.
Oancitizen, of Brows Held High, who looks at artsy films, analysing the good and bad in each film he reviews. Of all reviewers, Oancitizen would be the hardest to put on either side of the positive/negative fence. More analysis than comedy, but plenty of comedy arises merely from the observation of inherent ridiculousness in his chosen medium.
I think that the very best reviewers, at least from my perspective, fall on neither side. People like Nostalgia Critic, Marzgirl, Oancitizen and Rap Critic, who all respect and love their reviewed mediums, will look at each particular topic and discus he flaws and features it presents in a way that viewers can appreciate, take sides upon and learn from.
Final answer to the question? The only reviews with inherently less value are those with less explanation of their conclusions and less information.
Feedback welcome.
H. Rourke
No comments:
Post a Comment