|Yet another picture I didn't use in my Mushishi review. I've been unearthing them bit by bit.|
From what I've gathered in my relatively brief time surfing the blogosphere, the general consensus on subjectivity is, more or less, as follows:
"Nobody can be totally objective. Therefore, we should focus on communicating our opinions, because that's what people want anyways. After all, if people didn't want our opinions on things, why would they bother reading our stuff in the first place?"
Feel free to challenge or correct this summary, but that seems to sum up people's views on the matter pretty well. I can certainly understand why people say this. The mere act of writing a review already stops it from being totally objective. What one decides to include and exclude from a review is, by definition, a subjective act. Aside from this, we all have different ways of interpreting things, so what's good to one person may be bad to another. None of us have the ability to totally remove our opinions and external conditions from our reviews, so there is no way to be totally objective. And finally, there is also the fact that people read reviews because they want to see other's opinions. Even if they don't agree with the opinions, they'll probably have at least some passing interest in just why the reviewer thought that.
|Nobody's gonna make this face if you're subjective. Really. Don't worry about it.|
|No, writing objectively not as hard as writing in a foreign language. I know it seems like it, but it's not.|
|That's me, if Fried Noodles were information and I turned into Ran Kotobuki|
What do you think? Are objective reviews just an unachievable myth, or can we get close enough that we can call ourselves objective? Are subjective reviews better than objective ones, or vice versa? And finally, which do you prefer to read and/or to write?