I had mentioned awhile ago that I don’t really enjoy recapping episodes, nor do I wish to provide whole reviews for them. Mike from Anime Diet mentioned C.S. Lewis’s dictum that you must always consider and absorb something in full, perhaps more than once before you even begin to comment on it, much less give critique. This naturally ties into the ideas of Receiving vs. Using, and I think that’s where I feel the need to explore Mr. Lewis’ ideas on such.

While I feel no obligation to follow Mr. Lewis’ dictum to the letter, I have always possessed a level of distrust towards reviews. Not reviewers per se, but the general body of reviews which come out too soon or are too brief to be a proper consideration of a product. Naturally products of a lower grade or quality do not require much introspection. I do not need to spend a lot of time with the next Marvel Superheroes tie-in game to ascertain what it’s all about. But original products like Persona 3 (in gaming) or Claymore (in anime and manga) deserve further inspection.

There is, in my mind, room for gradual critique as a series goes on. Where one may not do this with a game (I find half-played reviews to be spurious in their judgement), a television series is certainly different. However, before we discuss that, let us focus on the nature of the game and the movie.

Games and movies generally fall into a similar category of consideration: all at once, or not at all. One does not go to a movie and begin writing their review right after the opening credits. Nor in the middle, or even at the three-quarter mark. Although one may do this mentally, reversals will occur rather quickly, and so one may come away from a movie with a very different opinion than what they had at its start or in its middle. But a single viewing may not be enough. Sometimes repeat viewings are necessary, as well as conversation with others before a perspective is achieved. Too often a reviewer is overtly positive or negative about a thing because no honest reception has occurred.

When a person first views a movie, expectations are present. Thus it is hard to “receive” any such production, because we already have some ideas about what the movie should do for us. While a talented reviewer may be able to assuage such things, most cannot, and so we must deal with that. Therefore, a second viewing is recommended, if not mandatory before a review of quality may be attempted. The second viewing should be treated as an utterly passive experience. Most times reviewers of a social kind will go to movies merely to satisfy their own delights. A serious reviewer will watch the movie in an empty state, so as to withhold their own expectations and enjoyments in lieu of actual consideration. Additional viewings may even be in order if a movie has a particularly complex narrative, or if the reviewer feels they have yet to “get” certain aspects presented.

Games are a less straightforward dynamic. Typically it is a far faster event to watch a movie than to play through a game. While sports titles or racing simulations are easy to grasp, others such as RPGs and action-adventure games will take a longer time to look over. As such, we must begin partial critique while going through the rote mechanics of a thing. It may take the form of a step-by-step returning process, redundantly considering certain aspects before writing of them. Control schemes are the easiest item on the list to assess, largely because they are dealt with over and over in a short amount of time. Other ideas such as graphics, vocals (in modern titles), and technical specifications are readily accessible. These can be written about quite easily, without too much attention paid to completion.

Plot, characterisation, and musical audio on the other hand take a fair bit more consideration. Music is the first piece which must be received in context, and then out of context. How well does the music work? Is it affecting you a certain way? Does it suit a scene? Then, moving away from the game, how does the music stand by itself? Here we begin to make qualifications. The first sort — in context — can only be done while playing. The second sort — stand alone — can be done after the fact.

Plot and characterisation must be treated in the same way one reads a book, or perhaps watches a movie. There is a difference here however because games can take on either form. One does not expect Persona 3 to mirror a movie, but they may expect it of Metal Gear Solid 3. Even then, a mixture of either model may be necessary. Repeat visitations to the characters, their world, and their circumstances are all necessary, putting aside expectations and attempting to receive their concepts. Let us consider a very popular title as a model: Final Fantasy VII.

I’ll begin with Tifa, the most under-appreciated character in the series. While Tifa has a lot of fanboys, it’s for purely sexual reasons, owing to her physical design. Few women appreciated her until Advent Children where her sexuality was scaled back in favour of toughening and normalising her image. Nonetheless, the classic view of Tifa is that of the big-breasted bimbo, and few people have considered anything beyond that.

If we put aside our expectations based on her form, there is an emotionally profound individual underneath. Her relationship with the protagonist Cloud is clearly romantic. She cares about him deeply and has since they were children. While some of Cloud’s past is falsified from Zack’s, his relationship with Tifa is real.

Aeris, Cloud’s main love interest, is a rival to Tifa, but this is something never put in the spotlight. Where most series’ may buffoon the love triangle into something vicious, it takes a back seat to the necessities of the mission ahead. These are not petty people and are too mature to commit themselves to infatuated dramatics. Where Cloud is often insensitive to Tifa and pursues Aeris, Tifa stands by her beloved in all circumstances. Be it when Cloud is mentally incapacitated, or when he is mourning Aeris, Tifa stands by him, takes care of him, and sees all things through to the end. In that, she is also shown as independent, able to support herself and another person. She has her own goals, runs her own business, and is by no means a doting flower of girlishness. But she understands loyalty.

How many reviewers got this? Only the very few. By and large the discussion about Tifa is how big her breasts are, what scenes she jiggles in, etc. It’s all a red herring however, distracting from the fact that she is a well developed character. She is perhaps one of the best developed characters in the whole of Final Fantasy, being that much of her caring is shown, not told to the viewer. She is a doer, not a talker.

Because of the way she is treated visually however, expectations are that she is a bimbo and so her character cannot matter much. This is the view of “use”-based consideration. Receiving her yields something entirely different.

However, I will not lie and say I came to these conclusions while playing. I did have the same expectations as other reviewers. It wasn’t until the third time I was going through the game and considering its cast that I came to these realisations. Most people return to a thing only to fulfil enjoyments, but here the honest reviewer must choose to receive the game properly, and not just play for enjoyment. Only then can a product be seen as it is, rather than through the lenses of stereotypes and misconceptions.

In terms of a television show, we have the liberty of doing a gradual or complete critique — often both. Some people attempt to do the complete critique with singular episodes. Thus we get the reaction that “episode 10 was not as good as episode 9, but certainly better than episode 5!”. Where this may work with purely episodic series’ like Lucky Star (and even then this is a weak approach), it is wholly counterproductive where something like Claymore is concerned. Story-arcs inhibit this sort of reviewing, and the far-reaching consequences of even stand-alone episodes may quickly disperse any notions given at a single time.

Then, what is the gradual critique? The gradual critique refers to looking at elements within the series: Tropes used, storytelling concepts, mythology present, and even short-term characters. One can talk about the dynamic between Raki and Clare early in the series, but conclusions should be withheld. This is because their story is not yet done — we have not seen the full developments of either, and so the critique must be ongoing. Drawing conclusions in gradual critiques is unwise, for it may quickly become dishonesty to one’s readership.

Issues with gradual critique often stem from the reviewer’s expectations. Conclusions are therefore doubly damning, because those expectations may be dashed in one episode, fulfilled in another and then dashed again. In this, gradual critiques should be treated as “doing research”.

There is a statute of limitations however. Here is where I disagree with Mr. Lewis that we must be utter completionists. While it is quite wise of us to do a proper critique when a series finishes, we may do some estimations when we have passed through a large number of episodes. We may talk about qualifications of a series’ dramatic principles of storytelling when we are sufficiently entrenched in the story. For instance, one may begin to talk about Claymore’s inner dramas by the end of The Slashers arc. This is the meat of the story, and it only becomes more intense from then on. We may also talk about our likings of certain character types (though not necessarily characters themselves), based on previous experience with those models. The reason one should generally refrain from character attachment however is that a particular persona may be falsified by the writer on purpose. He or she may become something entirely different, and then a reconsideration must be made. In the same way a show may “jump the shark”, so too can a character.

The gradual critique must eventually be subject to a complete critique however. The latter serves as a proper “reception” to all materials concerned, while the former was still bound down with expectations. Even then, a second or third complete reconsideration may be in order before an honest review may be produced. It is a lot of work, and I by no means expect professionals under a tight schedule to follow it as things are. Yet we are seeing that magazine readership has become more and more disgruntled at shoddy, half-played, half-viewed critiques, and are instead leaving for a more patient sphere: blogs and online sites. Thus we as bloggers should challenge ourselves with presenting reviews of higher and higher quality. After all, aren’t we the very same people who tired of magazines being slipshod about quality writing?

It’s important to consider the whole. It’s even more important to reconsider it.