Forum - View topicEP. REVIEW: Kino's Journey - the Beautiful World-
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ashabel
 Posts: 351 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nobody is asking you to replace a reviewer this far into the season. That would be ridiculous and not improve anything at all, since the new reviewer would have to adjust to talking about a show that is one month away from finishing, and the ultimate score really wouldn't change because yes, Kino's Journey isn't a particularly incredible show. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by saying this conversation is over, though. Are you telling us to stop discussing the quality and content of this series' reviews? Are we only allowed to comment on them when the opinion is positive? Be clear here. All I said here is that the quality of these reviews is very poor. I have explained in plain text why I think the quality of these reviews is very poor. Never did I attack the reviewer herself on a personal level, I only explained in detail why the quality of her reviews on this particular series is very poor. That doesn't mean I expect ANN as a website to suddenly turn on her and fire her, and it doesn't mean I think she is a terrible person. It just means I have a very low opinion on her skill as a review writer, at least from what I've seen of her work. Stop making a huge angry scene just because the readers on this website commented on the poor quality of a review series for a single show. Reviewers get criticized for the quality of their work all the time. That's what happens when you put your opinions up on the internet with the added weight of needing to argue why your opinions have weight. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Fair" being defined entirely by you in this instance, what your taste is, what you'd like to see, I think. I think Gabriella is doing a fine job backing up her opinion with careful explanations. I understand where she's coming from, even if I might not agree with all of her conclusions. There isn't anything particularly unreasonable or "wrong" about what she's saying - you just don't agree with it and want her to talk about the show in a different way. There is objectively nothing wrong with Gabriella's approach to reviewing this show. You have subjective disagreements with it, and you're expressing those disagreements in the forums. That's how it's supposed to work.
Nobody is making a "huge angry scene". You need to relax a little. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ashabel
Posts: 351 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm really not sure how there is anything subjective about pointing out that Gabriella claims to know the source material when she doesn't actually know it. Her entire argument in her review of the second episode hinged on claiming that it's a poor adaptation of the source material, even though it was more faithful to the source material than the version she's familiar with. The rest of her reviews continued in the same fashion. I guarantee people's opinions on this review series would rise considerably if Gabriella stopped pretending to be an expert on the novels she never actually read. As it is, that remains the biggest criticism of this review series.
Uh, the other assistant editor opened this argument by calling me thin-skinned, and then you followed up with a rather snippy-sounding accusation of me wanting to see the reviewer replaced, all because I criticized some of her work. Are you sure I'm the one who needs to relax? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Actually the second review said this:
This is a "failure of adaptation", specifically in this context compared to the 2003 version. She prefers the way it was adapted in the 2003 version and then goes through great lengths to explain exactly why. It wasn't actually a question of clinical fealty to the source material, that's not the argument she was making at all. "She doesn't actually know the material" is a way of framing this to make it look like this is an objective disagreement based on facts - but that isn't an accurate representation of the disagreement, which is, in the end, completely subjective. To you it's "actually a better adaptation because it's technically closer to the source material" but that isn't the argument Gabriella was making - she's comparing it to an earlier adaptation of the same work, and saying that was a better adaptation of the source material. This is preceded by a lengthy explanation as to why. You disagree, but your point is that this is actually a better adaptation due to specific fealty to the written word in the novel. Strict religious adherence to the written word is one angle you can take with an adaptation, but it's far from the only one. To me, this is pretty obviously a completely subjective opinion, especially in a case like this, where there are multiple adaptations of the same material and you can compare their relative success based on your emotional reaction to the work. I think you can probably see that, yes?
Yes, I'm positive. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ashabel
Posts: 351 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Actually, a comment of mine already addressed this on the previous page. At no point did Gabriella make an argument that the 2003 version was better as an adaptation by the value of fixing problems with the source material. She specifically described the 2017 version as a failure of an adaptation, but at no point did she address the argument of faithfulness versus revision. You are prescribing to her an argument that I specifically stated I wish she would have made, but didn't. She also claimed in another review that it's dumb for the show to pretend that all countries in the world are isolated city-states surrounded by walls, even though the novels specifically state that to be the case for Kino's world. And another review had her argue that the series is trying to sell Master and her assistant as heroic, even though the books have consistently treated them as nihilistic comic relief. It's not a "framing this to make it look like this is an objective disagreement based on facts," Gabriella's arguments contradict the source material so frequently that there is no way she could possibly know it. Which I agree, colors one's perception of the show very heavily because the biggest problem with it is that it's a show made entirely for fans and constantly trips over itself by being an adaptation of twelve stories chosen by fans via a poll and not an actually coherent attempt to adapt the work. But that still doesn't explain why she needs to act like she knows the source material when she very clearly doesn't.
This might be a shocker to you, but I'm a big girl. I turned thirty-two this year. I promise you I can dislike something without feeling particularly heated about it. I can also take being called thin-skinned without getting angry, and I can take being patronized the way you've been patronizing me by repeatedly insinuating that I'm being angry about this discussion. At most I'm a bit annoyed. I really honestly don't understand why you need to repeatedly put me down just to make an argument. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I read what she wrote and thought she could've been clearer about it, but that was the point she was making. We don't have to argue about this like the text isn't sitting right there - I read it, I came to one conclusion, you read it, you came to another. I think the answer at the end of that is "Gabriella's argument could've been clearer". I agree with that.
She didn't claim that.
This is in specific reference to the real world in the middle of a discussion of the efficacy of a political message in episode 7 of this show. "In the real world, countries aren't all walled-off city states, and the political argument the episode is making here relies on that, so the thematic conclusion this episode comes to doesn't track". That's what she was saying. You're choosing to represent that statement as 'doesn't understand the source material' but that is an unfair and inaccurate misrepresentation of what she was said in the review.
I'm not going to go look this specific one up because you started with "she said thing X about the show but it's actually Z in the books!" but that doesn't track. Are you criticizing her opinion of the show, or are you upset that she doesn't seem to acknowledge what's in the original books often enough? Either way those two things do not seem connected to me.
In each one of these instances you're leaning on "doesn't understand the source material" and in each one I'm finding that that isn't the case and is never what Gabriella is actually saying or writing about. I agree that when she's discussing "adaptation" she could've been clearer about her expectations and the relationship between this show the 2003 original and the source material, but I'm able to get her meaning just fine and I find your evidence very much lacking, and usually the result of a clear misinterpretation on your part. That isn't intended as some kind of massive horrible insult, we disagree and I think you're misinterpreting a lot of what Gabriella says. Part of that is on her, part of it is on you, I think.
You opened your conversation with me with this:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ashabel
Posts: 351 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I never said that she doesn't understand the source material, I said that she doesn't know the source material. I'm not trying to make a subjective statement about how she doesn't get the point of one story or another; I did at one point state that she doesn't seem to understand that the series is built on a series of thought experiments that function on logic completely different from our world and so don't hold up to analysis based on our common sense, but expecting one to argue philosophy from an objective standpoint is silly. No, what I said is that her reviews act as if she has read the books when it's very obvious from their content that she never touched them. What I'm saying is not that she doesn't understand the atmosphere of the books, it's that she acts like she knows all about them and yet gets so much basic information about their content wrong that there is no way she has possibly read them. I also don't understand why she needs to act as if she has read them when that continues to undermine her arguments.
Yes, because at that point one of your editors has called me thin-skinned and you followed up with accusing me of wanting to get someone fired. Generally when someone gets insulted and then accused of something they never said, that indicates some anger toward them. Hell, telling someone to "relax a little" after they were insulted by one of your co-workers is pretty rude in itself. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This isn't the point you made at all. You used "she didn't even know all the cities in Kino's Journey are walled off!" as an example of how she "clearly doesn't know anything about the books" and is "getting it wrong" but that isn't what she said in that example at all, not what she was talking about. She literally did not say anything incorrect about the source material when discussing the walled cities, but you presented that as evidence that she somehow had. That was a total misinterpretation of what she said. Based on that, you want me to agree with you that she "clearly doesn't understand the books at all"?
I wasn't speaking to you personally in my original message, I was talking to another user. I didn't quote you or mention your name, in fact.
I'm not interested in making this personal, I'm trying to understand your feedback and whether or not I need to do something about the handful of readers complaining in the forums about our Kino's Journey reviews. Are they being fair? Is the writer wrong? Those are the questions I'm trying to answer. They're your charges, you approached me after I responded to another user, so I'm discussing them with you. That's about it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Djidji
Posts: 26 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You think wrong then. It's funny to see you use the term "unfair" later when talking with Ashabel. But we agree that Gabriella is totally subjective when doing her reviews (which is fine!) so of course there would be a taste of unfairness for some readers.
It does not matter if I agree or not. I rather read a harsh or good reviews which judge the show for what it is supposed to do and not for what the reviewer want to show to be.
You're not making any sense here. A failure of adaptation meant the show didn't prove itself to convey the message of the source material OR, if they changed it, it was done poorly. The thing is, it did a good job in doing so whether it's a better of lesser version of the 03's one, managing to keep the original story's intentions. Let's take her full statement:
That's plainly a false accusation. Is it fair to blame the show for not adapting something which is not here in the source? Of course it's not.
Of course there was a meaning, but she didn't care to think about it because "it took out the crucial parts of the story" after all. (And we did talk about it here.)
The fact she saw the 03 version shouldn't biaise her PoV of the new adaptation though, and particularly when some of the fundations of the show ain't the same.
The fact she doesn't know the material is an objective fact. It matters a lot when you wanna talk about how the adaptation is well or poorly done.
Hmm... Just guessing, maybe because she's not the same?
A lengthy explanation to say "Hey, this is not the true story. In fact it's [...] that truly happened", understanding as "Hey in fact Kino is supposed to be a truly good girl". Which is not the case in this adaptation. The fact she misunderstood the show is noteworthy in her reviews, because she does want to see something which is not necessary here. In a nutshell, she's only interested the stories she considered having a pertinent (from her PoV) philosophical take.
You came in the discussion with a "So I think this conversation is over.", so hum... Edit :
Wut? You're doing it on purpose, don't you? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
She said "here is evidence that she does not know the books" and there was no evidence that she does not know the books. In fact Gabriella said nothing incorrect about the source material in that review. This is clear, this is not confusing.
Well, maybe it's a communication problem. Most everything is on the internet, right? I think it boils down to this statement here. What you're saying is "This show is intended to be a slavishly accurate adaptation of specific fan-chosen stories from the novels, for superfans of the novels only, and judging it as anything other than that, even comparing it to the 2003 version or expecting it to be thematically coherent is unfair and invalid because that isn't what the show is trying to do". You're saying the show has a specific mission, and the only valid opinion of it is one that judges it on that merit alone, on what you're telling me the show is "trying to do". I don't really agree that that is the only valid take on this show and Gabriella is in dereliction of duty for not towing that specific line, but maybe I'm still misunderstanding you.
I should have said "if what you're asking for is for us to replace the writer on these reviews, that conversation is not going to go anywhere." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ashabel
Posts: 351 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No, I want you to agree with me on the fact that she hasn't ever read the books and should stop pretending that she did. There is nothing wrong with not having read the books, given that the only translation past the first volume is unofficial and not everyone is aware that it exists. There is no reason for her to pretend like she has read them when she very clearly hasn't. And yes, I could very easily argue that yes, her lack of knowledge about all the cities in Kino's world being walled off contributes to the poor quality of her reviews. She argues that the message of that episode struggles when you consider that countries aren't walled off city-states in the real world, and that's inherently the problem. She applies our world's logic to a world that functions in completely different ways, which in turn sabotages her attempts at political reading. Her reviews are basically like reading someone claim that political messages in Zootopia make no sense because animals don't talk in real life. And that's on top of her constantly comparing the show to the source material despite not knowing anything about the source material.
All right, that is fair. But can you see why multiple people who engaged in the discussion would react to your statement, given that you're an editor on this website?
If you didn't want to make it personal, then there was no reason to tell me to "relax a little". You could have simply told me you didn't actually intend anger by the tone of your message. Again, I don't expect you to do anything. I think Gabriella is a mediocre writer and a bad reviewer for reasons I have already stated. However, I acknowledge that I have only read two series of her reviews - this one and the infamous review series of Unlimited Blade Works, which has been linked far and wide as a sort of running joke. I think the two series I've read suffer from the same problems - bizarre attempts to inject political messages where there are none, insistence on arguing from real world perspective even in cases where it doesn't apply, plus complete lack of understanding of literary tropes and criticism - but that doesn't mean that every single review of her is that way. But I think two review series are too small a sample to truly decide whether to consider her a bad writer. When I discuss and criticize a review, it's no different from doing the same thing to a short story of a book. Regardless of my opinion on it, the review is already out there. I won't expect a writer or their editor to recall a book just because I didn't like it. So long as the author doesn't actively seek to harm anyone, it's perfectly fine for a bad review to exist. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CrowLia
 Posts: 5528 Location: Mexico |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't think Gabriella has ever claimed she knows the original novels. In fact, I think Jacob specifically mentioned she was chosen to write these reviews because she knew the 2003 show but wasn't a die-hard fan of the franchise. And she has never mentioned the novels themselves for comparison since episode 2. So I don't know why you're pressing so hard on an argument that does not hold up within Gabriella's text Her complaints about how the show is presented -like making the Master look as a heroic figure- are not in any way a claim on knowledge on the source material. Quite the contrary, she's criticizing that this show can't stand on its own legs because if the intent isn't to make the Master look heroic, they've done a piss poor job at it within the show itself. And they have. Nothing within this 2017 version of Kino's Journey has been any indication that the Master isn't meant to be taken as a cool heroic -if a bit lawless- figure. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Who is "pretending" Gabriella has read the books when she hasn't? I'm not seeing anything in these reviews or in your examples that suggest she's been completely wrong about anything in them, nor has she claimed to have read them all. She is not presenting herself as an expert on the books in any of these reviews and I haven't been defending her as one. We agree she could be clearer in her comments about the nature of this adaptation, but beyond that you're prescribing a lot here.
This is a literalist argument and I don't really subscribe to literalism when it comes to media analysis or criticism. Gabriella's position is argued pretty clearly, she backs it up with examples. It's a valid reading of the series in my opinion.
I don't agree with this. The episode has a message, one she disagrees with - and one she explains, at length, in the review, why she thinks the metaphor doesn't work, why she thinks the conclusion it comes to about human nature is irresponsible. You may not like her analysis, you may disagree with her approach, you may think her perspective is overwrought or too political or too whatever, but from a structural standpoint, it's solid and rooted in examples from the show. She didn't just throw it out there and then back it up with bad examples, she explained herself. And it was entirely within the context of this episode. I mean, look, she even addresses this directly in the review itself:
Seriously, this seems like it addresses your concerns.
Sure, I can see that.
This goes both ways.
I don't think Gabriellla's reviews are bad, but we're in agreement on this. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ashabel
Posts: 351 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gabriella's now widely quoted second episode review has a line, and I repeat it again:
Claiming that something is a "failure of adaptation" and then following up with an explanation of how they changed they story, does heavily imply that you know the original story. And I would say that the Master taking over a historical monument, rigging it with a bomb and shooting people in the kneecaps just to extort safe passage and a boatload of money does indicate that she's a gigantic asshole. In fact, I have no idea how you could possibly think that she's intended to be heroic from the actions that she takes in the story. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Djidji
Posts: 26 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Down to her first review with the second episode, it's clear she didn't read them. That's all. It's just a matter of judging the show adaptation-wisely.
Yup, you're still misunderstanding even though I though it was clear enough. I should also remind people than not all the stories were taken from the poll. I don't mind at all comparing the new and the old adaptation as long as you know what's their take. I do say it's unfair to blame a serie for sticking to the original content then claiming it deliberatly cut off important details. I do add it's unfair to criticize a show because you and the show share different conceptions about its intentions.
In my opinion, Kino no Tabi is the kind of show where the viewer choose himself about those stands. Someone said an OVA was already featuring her so people are free to judge it knowing it or not. The heroic figures are the one who write the History. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group