coburn established that perfection is an ideology.
I realized that subjectivity and conflict between subjectivities is essential to society.
A month ago, OGT told me up:
I still must disagree with Lelangir, though-even in my relative infancy as a LoGH watcher, even with the quality of storytelling in LoGH at a ridiculously high level, it still shouldn’t “kill” anime, metaphorically or no. There’s far too many diverse kinds of anime for it to “kill” anime, and (according to this post, anyway) stating such seems to imply a rejection, or trivialization, of anime and its web of trappings, which does nasty things to my head as I try to wrestle with a fanbase who trivializes their own object of fanhood. [my emphasis]
I don’t remember if I was being hyperbolic (afterglow of fanboyism probably) by saying that LoGH killed anime – I do know that it was the most captivating thing I had ever watched though. But OGT is absolutely correct by saying that when we state we have witnessed perfection, this elusive ideology that is not really supposed to concretely exist, we are effectively trivializing the object of our fandom, of our social existence, by enacting a supposedly objective hierarchy of value – LoGH would be perfect, everything else, not perfect. Obviously, in many ways, it doesn’t work like that.
So I was asking myself – why do we rate in the first place? I have no idea. But I have questions:
(1) It’s somehow related to this.
(2) We need standardization, systems of agreement. Concrete ways to convey opinion through the same system [of ratings]. Simultaneously, this leads to disagreement, but that’s a good thing.
(3) We just like to?