|
First, I appreciate all of the feedbacks. The main takeaway here, Relentlessflame, is actually that applying an academic approach wasn't ever going to work if one had intended to use it to tear down, mock or denigrate. Guardian Enzo and Sheba raise excellent points: writing for these reasons is unproductive, and attempts to define objectivity and shoehorning academic methods into blogging is inherently challenging. Conversely, bloggers who wrote much more casually, with the intent of, as you say, being positive, had a lot more fun with the pursuit and found themselves engaging with the community in a more meaningful way, enough to sustain their hobby over a longer timeframe.
Random Curiosity is a fantastic example of this: although they've gone through many writers over the years, their best writers all share in common the willingness to dispense with academic methods for a more approachable and accessible touch. They tend to speak from the heart and describe what worked for them, or what didn't work, from a value-laden perspective, and that made their content more meaningful. Were I to have asserted that I alone had practised methods that made my blog long-lasting, Relentlessflame, you would have a point. However, Random Curiosity and many other blogs have fond longevity because they are positive. Behind the Nihon Review, in trying to be provocative, struggled precisely because their mindset was one of negativity, and maintaining this over the long run would be nastily exhausting. My point therefore stands: the emphasis on negativity by means of academic methods did them no favours.
In this case, I have no qualms with Behind Nihon Review's hatred of K-On! per se, but I am suggesting that trying to use more obscure vocabulary and references to philosophy, sociology, etc. as a means of impressing, or intimidating viewers to justify their position (where a personal, subjective response would be significantly more valuable) comes across as being extremely disingenuous. This wouldn't be as large of an issue were it not for the fact that people in the day agreed with them without fully understanding what was being said, and Last Sinner has (correctly) noted that things today are perhaps worse in some circles: unfortunately, people have a tendency of falling for things that "sound smart". On reflection, this thread may potentially be in violation of some forum rules, but I've long wondered why others felt drawn to this specific approach and might even be willing to defer to someone else's opinions on the virtue that there's a lot of flowery language. Sheba has proposed an explanation that makes sense, and I will clarify: I don't look down on what people like and dislike (I could have easily written endless articles on my own disapproval of isekai, but I acknowledge people have legitimate reasons for enjoying them!), but I hate it when people agree with sophisticated-sounding folks who only sound smart without giving other perspectives fair consideration.
|