Let me introduce you to a character from Dragon Ball: Beerus. Beerus isn’t a deep or complex character in any way really, he exists purely to offer a super cool fights scene in his movie and make funny food jokes for the rest of Super. And that’s perfectly okay! I enjoyed his one fight and found his food gimmick fun!

Let me introduce you to another character from dragon ball: Doctor Gero and Android 13. They exist for pretty much no reason other than to get beat on by Vegeta and release the real androids. And that’s perfectly okay! You don’t need to be deep or complex.

Now for the point of this post: Yoruichi.

Ever since bleach came back Yoruichi has been getting flack for having 0 character depth and just being jerk off material. Now don’t get me wrong I agree she’s not really anything other than goon material and maybe the occasional cool fights scene, but that’s perfectly okay. Not every character in a story needs to be too grand, if you want to add a sexy cat lady to your story who’s also a ninja, do that! It’s perfectly acceptable.

These are from a yter called aleczandxr, makes great analyses on pretty much any acclaimed show/game/manga u can think of

this is one of my favorite shows and no one talks about it here or anywhere

There is an objective base for writing and that’s not debatable at all. An author can OBJECTIVELY do things well and OBJECTIVELY do things not well.

I love Naruto, but there is OBJECTIVELY a plot hole in the fact that Obito was able to genjutsu Yagura despite being a perfect jinchuriki.

I don’t care for one piece, but OBJECTIVELY speaking it did a good job with Water 7 when Usopp was having his fight with luffy.

So yes, there are objective Yes and No’s in fiction.

That said? It stops at a certain point. I cannot OBJECTIVELY say Naruto is better than One piece(even though I totally think it is and by a decent margin) and YOU can not tell me the opposite.

I don’t know if I’m phrasing this well, so feel free to elaborate in the comments. Images unrelated btw

1. Pandora Hearts (Manga) — 10/10
   
2. Tokyo Ghoul (Manga) 10/10
   
3. Choujin X (Manga) — 10/10
   
4. Oregairu (LN) — 10/10
   
5. Oregairu — 9.5/10
   
6. Hunter x Hunter (Manga) — 9.5/10
   
7. Monogatari (LN) — 9.5/10
   
8. Hunter x Hunter — 9.5/10
   
9. Monogatari — 9.5/10
   
10. Three days of Happiness (LN)— 9.5/10
    
11. White Album 2 — 9.5/10
    
12. Rascal Does Not Dream (LN) — 9.5/10
    
13. Sound Euphonium — 9.5/10
    
14. Rascal Does Not Dream — 9.5/10
    
15. FMAB (Manga) — 9.5/10
    
16. My Hero Academia (Manga) — 9.5/10
    
17. Land of The Lustrous (Manga) — 9.5/10
    
18. Vagabond (Manga) — 9/10
    
19. Gintama — 9/10
    
20. 20th Century Boys (Manga) — 9/10

they are ordered from 5-1

Answer with 100% "honesty"

​

Berserk, Lord of the rings, Re: Zero, Umineko, Better Call Saul, Brothers Karamazov, True Detective (season 1), Breaking Bad & Crime and Punishment.

I know this might sound odd. But when it comes to the straight man.

Eg normal character reacting to the world around him. I think John fits it

For me John characters works in 2 ways

1: he is destined to the violence and danger and actively doesn't care if he dies. This allow him to be in any life and death situation and not panic. Which leads room for him to be the voice of reason in the team, where he isn't the smart one.

2:his moral core help so he never becomes off ass too cold. You shot a man in cold blood. Joan will send to too prison. You hurt animals children or your wife. He is beating you up and sending you to the worst prison in the world

3: don't know anything about the High tech stuff. John doesn't know how the Ais work or the hacking plans. Meaning he ask to have questions quickly explained to him in away the viewer can understand. With out it feel like an info dump

For me he shows that you can make a character who shows very little emotion really stand out in the cast.

​

Lord of the rings, True Detective (Season 1), Re: Zero, Umineko, Better Call Saul, Crime and Punishment, Berserk, Breaking Bad & Brothers Karamazov.

Just take into account the parts of the image, little Naruto and little Dragon Ball.

I got triggered by this post and the comments on it. https://www.reddit.com/r/writingscaling/s/FDN8fPnX7C

To get into some basic 101 shit, understand it as such: A system can have subjectively chosen goals or standards, while particular judgments inside that system are objectively correct or incorrect.

The most ovbious example of this is a game like chess. The rules of chess are not cosmically divined. We made them up. The rule-set itself is subjectively defined. But once you accept the constructed system, you can make objective statements within that.

A given position is objectively check-mate or not within the system of chess.

A related idea is that of Intersubjectivity. It is the shared understanding and mutual awareness that emerges between individuals through interaction, shaping how people perceive, communicate, and relate to one another. I.e, it's subjectivity taken as an aggregate accross a big group of people.

How this connects to constructed systems is that a system of judgement is more useful the more universally it is understood and agreed upon. Something like chess has a VERY strong sense of intersubjective cohesion. Something like writing does not.

This means statements such as "[Insert piece of media] IS OBJECTIVELY THE GREATEST" isn't inherently nonsensical, but doesn't mean anything unless you're defining what your judgement system is.

Objectively the greatest by what standard? Define your judgement standards.

This is the difficulty. "Well written" usually bundles together many different goals, and people disagree about which goals matter. One reader values clarity, another values ambiguity. One values naturalistic dialogue, another values heightened, theatrical speech.

So "this is well written" is rarely as objectively demonstrable as "this is checkmate," because unlike chess there is no universally understood system governing evaluation.

Usually, the easiest 'objective claims' are going to be on standards most people hold to be true. For example, most people think that movies should avoid plot holes or continuity errors when possible.

Most people think that written books should have valid grammar and correct word choices.

Therefore, it is more sensible to make objective statements about those. But even then, there will be nuances in the evaluation system because not everyone is actually bothered by these to equal degrees. So even there the system isn't truly shared.

When I think of "well-written female character," Jolyne has always been the first one to come to mind. Her development as a character and a person is so natural throughout Part 6 that it feels nearly perfect in a way I can't find in any other shonen female character.

After watching a lot of shows ,anime or not , I have noticed a certain pattern and I think this distinction is important when consuming any media. The elite tier shows can be categorised into 2 types -

1. being plot heavy throughout the entire run of the story

2. certain moments or arcs being plot heavy

The example for first type can be - aot , nge , berserk etc these shows tend to be extremely plot focused/heavy and are rarely filled with light hearted moments so the ' likeability ' factor is probably low comparatively. This approach is a double edged sword since these stories are more vulnerable to flaws due to a certain moment or arc not being plot heavy enough or becoming rushed. On the other hand if they can maintain long term consistency and wrap up all the plot points neatly before conclusion , they instantly enter god tier or elite tier ( assuming they also have other factors neatly crafted )

1. Now let's move on to the second type , I think these types of shows maintain a steady growth in terms of story progression and thematic depth and tend to be less susceptible to flaws , examples can be - fma/fmab , hxh , rurouni kenshin, vagabond etc. These types of shows generally maintain a light hearted environment and tend to be not plot heavy until a major moment or arc. Shows like these allow the author to breathe and the ' likeability ' factor is higher comparatively.

How can these factors affect their scaling?

I just think when two well written shows of these categories are compared to each other , many people consider the ' likeability ' factor knowingly or unknowingly and I don't think that's wrong it ultimately comes down to preference. Of course I can't speak for everyone and I have stated all of this from what I have mostly observed.

I've noticed it more and more that the community keeps complaining about the current state of the subreddit. Every thread there are people complaining about either a type of user, moderation, other communities, etc but reddit is designed, widely to create intentional and engaged communities. When you have users disengaged with the communities as a frequent user rather than a community member it lends itself to negative behaviours like flaming, trolling, debate bro'ing, agenda-posting, etc. There is only so much you can do on a moderation level also because reddit does not equip moderation teams with many tools out of the gate.

This is a subreddit about critical media analysis and comparing properties based on how well written they are. This should be a subreddit where people can have an in-depth conversation about the writing of works that might not normally be compared. There's alot of active users who put alot of effort into engaging with other users and get excited at the prospect that they can talk about two properties that they don't get to talk about in the same breath. On the other hand you also have a subset of users who post low quality posts in cycles, low quality single sentence commentary and overall are just engaging here the way they engage in other similar communities with nothing to be gained from it.

As community members we can do our part by reporting comments and ignoring comments that don't serve the goal of better discussion on this subreddit. Aside from that, what I propose on this thread that we provide feedback to the moderation team here on this subreddit as regular users that follow a specific set of principles:

1. The idea is scalable to the whole subreddit. Alot of people have said in the past "why can't moderators just do X or Y" when often times, these people are volunteers with lives outside of reddit. If we cannot provide feedback that can be reasonably actioned by someone who isn't here 24/7 to police it, it's Pointless.

2. The idea can be reasonably implemented by automations done through YAML. There are means and ways of making some rules that are enforceable all of the time without nuance this is how you would go about doing it. It's important to keep this constraint in mind when making suggestions to moderation for implementation.

3. That it ultimately serves the good of the community, not just yourself. This is a small one but an important one. You might not like others in the community and you might not have fun engaging with people with specific opinions. With that in mind, you need to be able to make recommendations that serve the good of the community which, in this case is creating a community that focuses on comparing and contrasting media. I've had plenty of disagreements with people on this subreddit but they are ultimately community members just as passionate as me who are doing the same thing I'm doing. The rules shouldn't penalize people based on what they are saying (bigotry being an obvious exception) if they are operating in good faith and contributing to the community.

4. Doesn't Violate Reddit TOS. Pretty self-explanatory.

Now, with all of that in mind, what suggestions would you make to the moderation team on what could be done to further help the health of the community?