From: nasato@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Neil Asato)
Subject: Re: On Criticism, Popularity and Quality (an essay)
Organization: University of Engineering, College of Engineering
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 11:15:21 GMT

In article <18k9lfINNol0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bn981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ryan Mathews) writes:
>
>(I whipped this off after thinking about the BGC thing going on
>over here.  It's not anime-related, but I think it is relevant.)
>
>You know, it's fun to criticize things.  I'm not sure why.
>Sometimes, it's a form of catharsis, letting off steam.
>You're pissed that you wasted your time, or even worse, your
>money, participating in something that you didn't really
>enjoy.  So ripping it apart with words feels good, sort of as
>if you're fighting back at who or what wasted your time.
>
>Other times, you aren't really that upset, but just giving
>your views.  But it still feels good.  Why?  Perhaps because
>you're doing the "right thing" by helping others to avoid
>what you considered to be an unpleasant experience.  Or maybe
>it's just communication itself that feels good.  Criticism
>gives you a valid excuse to talk or write.
>
>So, it's not surprising that everyone's a critic.  Someone
>rather crude once said "Opinions are like assholes, everyone
>has one, and they all stink."  I disagree.  I like discussing
>opinions, provided one small rule is observed.
>
>The rule is simply this:  "Thou shalt not present one's
>opinions as facts."  Of course, this isn't always easy.
>We usually believe our opinions to be fact; that's why we
>hold them.  However, if this rule is not observed, there's
>always the risk of taking what is a stimulating discussion
>and turning it into an argument.
>
>I remember when I was a freshman in college, I was about the
>only person in the entire (small) dorm who liked Doctor Who.
>Once, this lady student sat down behind me and said, in a
>conversational tone-of-voice, something like "You know, this
>show is *so* stupid.  I can't believe anyone would watch it."
>Being even more temperamental then than I am now, I blew up
>at her.  After she had left, the one other person in the room
>told me that he thought I had been out of line: she had just
>been expressing an opinion.  Well, that was true.  But she
>had expressed it as a fact.  And behind the fact was an
>incredibly rude implication: "If you're watching this, and
>enjoying it, there must be something seriously wrong with
>your head."
>
>She didn't even have to include that second sentence.  It was
>enough for her to publicly announce that the show that I was
>enjoying was "stupid".  The implication is there.
>
>Since then, I have made a habit of pointing this out on rec.
>arts.startrek and rec.arts.comics.  On rec.arts.startrek the
>argument took the form "Just because Star Trek: The Next
>Generation gets great ratings, doesn't mean it's any good."
>Sure.  And all the people who are watching the show, the
>reason for those great ratings, are buffoons.  On rec.arts.
>comics, the target was X-Men.  "Just because it's the best
>selling comic every month doesn't mean it's worth reading."
>The same argument applies.

     I suspect that you may be overly idealistic on human nature.
There was an old science based comic on anthropomology in the 1970s
that had two stereotyped cavemen looking at a bunch of cavemen-like
folks bashing eachother in the heads with clubs. One of the cavemen
bystanders commented,"They were more peaceful before they learned
to language." (actually, the idea is somewhat out-dated since there
was supposedly a number of observed events that shows that animals
can be as vicious as human beings, most notable were the chimpanzee
border wars observed by Goodall in 1978 [Introduction to Psychology,
10 th ed., pg 426] in which things like gang warfare and other behaviour
normally attributed to humans were actively practiced by animals.)

>
>My point here is that arguments like that should be buffered.
>If the writers had just stuck the phrase "for me" at the end
>of each of those statements, they would've been perfectly
>true and not offensive in the slightest.  As it stands, they
>imply that people who watch Next Generation and read X-Men
>are somehow beneath them.  Maybe these people just have
>different tastes.  Maybe they belong to a different age group
>or just run with a different crowd.  You can't assume that
>you're the only one who knows what's "really" good.

     You are being too idealistic. Every group "knows what is
good for you". Try reading Fahrenheit 451, then see how true the words
ring of today. Fortunately these events seem to occur in cycles,
so it should have periods where people can go out and enjoy what they
like before it becomes taboo again (clasic case, the Comics Code 
Authority seems to have been losing power for a while, so just
lay low for a while until things get better before you have to lay low
once again).

>
>lowest common denominator, and I've even been guilty of using
>the term myself occasionally, but I don't truly believe in
>it.  Oh, there's a LCD, alright.  We're all part of it,
>otherwise it wouldn't be called "common".  I just don't
>believe that appealing to that part of us can, by itself,
>result in a money-making venture.  Well, okay, it can,
>provided you don't spend too much.  But my point is that
>you'll have a really tough time making a hit that way.  The
>reason is simple: too many creators take that route.  And
>since one piece of LCD-crap is like every other piece, you're
>going to have to fight every other piece to get your share of
>the audience.

     Lowest common denominator sounds like cultural elite or
the infidels or the evil roleplayers. It is a title/ label used
to get people to say "how shocking! I won't let my kid see that
trash!" We will see which side will win out in the end (or at
least in the cycle portion that the U.S. seems to be headed in)?

>
>I mean, look at movies.  Go to your local video store and
>check out the action section.  It's filled with cheesy blow-
>em-up flicks that you've never heard of, right?  So how come
>there are only so many action films that *do* make it on the
>hit list?  If pandering to the LCD is such a good route, this
>rack should be chock-full of million-sellers.  (Advertising,
>comes the obvious rebuttal.  But advertising can only get you
>to see it once.)
>
>Well, there must be something to those few.  They must be, in
>some way, better than the others.  But since we've already
>stamped every piece of LCD material with the label "crap",
>that doesn't make sense.  "Good crap" looks like an oxymoron
>to me, if ever I saw one.
>
     There was an article this weekend in the Honolulu Star-
Bulletin about the use of obscenities in U.S. shows (T.V. and
movies). It said a lot of people opposed them in polls and
letter columns, but a lot of those same people are users of
them on in everyday life. The reporter commented that taking
the moral high ground (or piling it under you to get a mound)
is easy but it is something few actually are willing to actually
apply it to their own lives. I suppose it might make for an interesting
horror story to have a person from this world visit a world where everyone
acted and thought like people claim people should. There was a funny 
(or disquieting, depending on your view) children's book called Peter
Perfect, a boy so perfect that he was inhuman, and he that is exactly what
he was.

>The point I'm making is that it is absurd to argue that
>something that is wildly popular is garbage.  "Not a piece of
>art", I'll give you.  But it can't be utter garbage if so
>many people watch it.  There must be something to it.  The
>LCD just can't give you that share.
>
>I thought TOP GUN was barely worth the $1.75 I paid to see
>it.  I caught a little of ERNEST GOES TO CAMP on TV, and
>still scratch my head over its popularity.  But both made
>boffo bucks at the box office.  So, unless I fail to catch
>myself in time, I won't argue that both movies suck, stink,
>have no redeeming features, are garbage, crap, shit, what
>have you.  I just figure that those movies have some kind of
>appeal that I don't get.
>
>That's the ticket in criticism, you know.  Humility.  Stating
>your opinions as opinions, not fact.  "I think..."  "I
>believe..."  "IMHO..."  Use these phrases and you'll start a
>lot fewer arguments.  At least with me.  :-)
>
>			---------- Ryan  Mathews
     I have not bothered to interefere with this flame war
largely because I wanted to see what the majority of the people
here really know of animation in Japan ( and because of a lot of reports
 too). It may not be such a bad thing for the cycle of "morality"
to go through again as it might be interesting to see how the animation
and manga industry develops without the influence of western markets
for a while. There are plenty of non-action and non-sexual overtones
type of anime, but people get what they really want in the end.
Sazae-san and Chibi Maruko-chan offers good insight into the "Japanese
mind" (I use quotation marks since some folks seem to regard Asians
as somehow alien or something equally insulting). There are children's
shows like Tomato Man and Doraemon. There are plenty of others, but 
nobody seems to care. I also have seen shows like the Japanese
version of Jungle Book and Peter Pan (not the same as Peter Pan the
Pirates), but I suppose they do not count or something. By the way,
my favorite anime store is probably Bun Bun Do, since they have
one of the largest television selections. There are plenty of cooking
anime shows too, like Cooking Papa and Oh My Kunde.
     There are some good shows made in the U.S. that have managed to
survive the cycles (the best to me was Charlotte's Web; Schoolhouse 
Rock comes next for originality and education value, but economics
has relegated them to mainly rental shops, which is a shame).
     You should be able to see in your lifetime several cycles
or morality shifts in your lifetime, so just stock up on tapes and
souveniers (CDs, cards, whatever takes your fancy) everytime the
cycle again allows some things you enjoy to get into your grasp.
     
     Aside: I saw one clamation-like show called and based on the
book called After Man that was made in Japan. It was a very strange
semi-documentary-like of ecology "after man". I think that it was
apart of some expo arrangement in Japan some years ago.
     By the way, my area turned out okay with Hurricane Iniki, though
the folks on Kauai are going to have to wait a month before they get
full electrical power and who knows how long before they get their
homes back to normal. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin noted that the
last 3 hurricanes seemed to have all been aiming for Kauai by some
quirk of chance (Hurricanes Dot, Iwa and Iniki). Hope they turn
out okay. Some of the gas stations suposedly tried to do price gouging,
fortunately Hawaii is one of those states that has laws that forces
them to cough up the excess or television stations and government
agencies will make things very embarassing for them.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.anime