SpideySavestheDay wrote:Not just overuse but a misunderstanding of what the ratings mean. Case in point, I read quite a few reviews of Sinestro #1; I wanted know what others thought of it. On average reviewers rated the comic at a 3-4 but one reviewer slammed it with a "1". Is that a fair assessment of just about any comic book? Does the reviewer understand the meaning of a 1/5? Is this the "right" comic for this particular reader? The answer for all three is no. A fan of the medium understands every intricate piece that it takes to deliver a comic book. I question this person's appreciation of the medium.
Clearly Sinestro #1 wasn't the right comic for that reader. I'm slightly curious how/why they rated it so low.
In my opinion, a rating of a 1 is as much of a reflection on the editor/publisher as the creative team. Something that bad ought not to have been published in most cases. Or, at the very least, the editor should have worked with the creators to fix the shortcomings of the work. Sometimes a creator can be too close to the work to see it objectively. That is part of the job of the editor. A single star rating is indicative of poor storytelling to the point that being able to enjoy the story is practically rendered moot because it was next to impossible to decipher the story.
But sometimes, a rating that low is a reflection of the reviewer. I'll admit there have been a few things I've read over the years that were essentially lost on me and might have been better than I was able to see. Sometimes I just miss an aspect of the story that on a second look is clear as day. That doesn't happen often but it has happened to me. once that piece clicks into place, my entire opinion of a work can radically change.
A rating is a mix of the subjective views of the reviewer and a somewhat objective view of the work. I can differentiate something I like from something I think is good storytelling and/or good art. I can enjoy something that is lacking in the technical areas and not enjoy something that is great from a technical point of view. In some cases, the objectively "better" something is, the less I might like it. A really well done horror story isn't something I'm likely to enjoy. Some people, and it seem like the person that slammed Sinesto #1 with a single star might be one of these people, can't differentiate what they like from what they think is well done. I'm guessing that this person didn't see something in the issue that once pointed out would cast the issue in a new perspective from which the work really is inferior.
The best kind of example of that I can think of would be when a writer tells a great story with a character that people unfamiliar with the character enjoy but flies in the face of the core concepts of the character making it hard for those familiar with the character to enjoy. The first Mission: Impossible movie was that way to a degree. They took the one guy that was the hero of every previous Mission: Impossible series after the first season and turned him into the bad guy. The movie also turned an ensemble show into a solo star movie. But, at that point, the problem isn't the movie or story but the title and names of the characters.
Again, there can be a world of difference between a "well executed" story and an enjoyable story.
Were I to give a comic a rating that low, I'd kind of feel obligated to point out some things that could have been done to fix what I saw as problems with the work. At the very least, then the creator gets some constructive feedback on the work which they can take or leave as they see fit.
SpideySavestheDay wrote:JohnMayo wrote:A couple of years ago I read an article by Roger Ebert about reviewing and he made a comment about the risk of over praising a work.
Great example of someone who understood the power of a rating whether it was a simple thumbs up/down or number of stars. Plus he was so articulate when explaining his point of view.
While I didn't follow his work all that closely, his views on reviewing have certainly colored my opinions on how to review something. At some point I need to read/re-read more on his views of reviewing.
SpideySavestheDay wrote:John, your reviews are fair and what more can a person ask for?
Thanks. I appreciate that. I try to be as fair and understanding as possible when reviewing something. Every creator is trying to make the best comic they can and have spent a fair amount of time and effort doing so. The least I can do is treat them and their work with respect and give an honest appraisal of what I think of the work. I've had a few creators tell me either in person or over email that my review was harsh/critical but fair which I take as a compliment. I'd much rather be know for being critical but fair than for blindly loving everything that comes my way.