I side closer to what you have in mind, namely, that critiquing or reviewing something can't be properly done if it's entirely based on whether or not one likes it.
Sure, it motivates a person to do a review for something that person enjoys. But that can't be the only motivation. (I'll note here that I'm limiting this to basic online commentary or reviews, and not anything professional.) Also important is that you can't do a proper review when it's based entirely on subjective reasons of taste, e.g. "I didn't like it; it never grabbed me." When I do a basic review, I find its strengths and weaknesses, and figure out what makes them such. Is the plot coherent? How's the art direction? Is the cast well-balanced in its handling of individual storylines? etc. What parts are seamless, and which sloppy?
As an example, I remember watching Fafner and thinking towards the end of the series "they've got too much character storylines happening, and not enough episode-time to handle all of them. This isn't working. I'm not connecting to any of them." That's a problem when dealing with anime that features a large cast. Also, at times the art direction didn't fit with the feel of the story: a triple-take seems out of place when the scene should be emotionally gripping. There are more things to note, both good and bad, but this should give you an idea of what I notice when analyzing something for review. I don't purely base my thoughts on what I like or dislike; I try and find out what it is that makes me like or dislike it in the first place. If you can figure out what it is that grips you or distances you, you're headed in the right direction for a review.
Nevertheless, I don't find it completely wrong to be motivated by likes and dislikes, but the casual reviewer ought to clarify what it is about the object of interest that makes it so. Otherwise, you get badly written reviews that don't tell you much about the object itself.
Don't bother trying to find a solid framework for reviews that holds in all cases - a style that works equally well in TV, film, books, professional articles, etc. I find that following textbook perfect reviews to be dusty and dry, smelling of method. Sometimes you have to be creative to express your thoughts properly, and that means stepping outside of any rigid set of textbook rules. Method is important, but don't stick to it at all costs. I think that the creativity of the object under consideration demands creativity in return, on the reviewers part.
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 05/31/10 | Reply
I side closer to what you have in mind, namely, that critiquing or reviewing something can't be properly done if it's entirely based on whether or not one likes it.
Sure, it motivates a person to do a review for something that person enjoys. But that can't be the only motivation. (I'll note here that I'm limiting this to basic online commentary or reviews, and not anything professional.) Also important is that you can't do a proper review when it's based entirely on subjective reasons of taste, e.g. "I didn't like it; it never grabbed me." When I do a basic review, I find its strengths and weaknesses, and figure out what makes them such. Is the plot coherent? How's the art direction? Is the cast well-balanced in its handling of individual storylines? etc. What parts are seamless, and which sloppy?
As an example, I remember watching Fafner and thinking towards the end of the series "they've got too much character storylines happening, and not enough episode-time to handle all of them. This isn't working. I'm not connecting to any of them." That's a problem when dealing with anime that features a large cast. Also, at times the art direction didn't fit with the feel of the story: a triple-take seems out of place when the scene should be emotionally gripping. There are more things to note, both good and bad, but this should give you an idea of what I notice when analyzing something for review. I don't purely base my thoughts on what I like or dislike; I try and find out what it is that makes me like or dislike it in the first place. If you can figure out what it is that grips you or distances you, you're headed in the right direction for a review.
Nevertheless, I don't find it completely wrong to be motivated by likes and dislikes, but the casual reviewer ought to clarify what it is about the object of interest that makes it so. Otherwise, you get badly written reviews that don't tell you much about the object itself.
Don't bother trying to find a solid framework for reviews that holds in all cases - a style that works equally well in TV, film, books, professional articles, etc. I find that following textbook perfect reviews to be dusty and dry, smelling of method. Sometimes you have to be creative to express your thoughts properly, and that means stepping outside of any rigid set of textbook rules. Method is important, but don't stick to it at all costs. I think that the creativity of the object under consideration demands creativity in return, on the reviewers part.