(Just using the "Lit" prefix because it could also be short for "literary," which would be the roughest equivalent to this thread's purpose. In short, don't think about it too much.)
The answer that immediately pops into everyone's heads is "bad," right? It makes sense. I mean, opinion and fact are two different things. Most everyone is in agreement on that. Put extremely simply, a fact is something that's definitive. 2+2=4. Bam. Fact. An opinion, meanwhile, is how you, as an individual, feel about something. Girls with snake tails are awesome (everybody gets 1 weird thing). Sure, that's true of me, but that doesn't make it automatically true for everyone else. People are different and have different tastes and all that fun opinion stuff.
But, while pretty much everyone admits that opinion and fact aren't the same thing, does that mean presenting opinions as facts is bad? The reason I ask this is because of a particular word: Presenting.
It's no secret that we value criticism in our media (especially when the criticism aligns with out personal views). However, if criticism is subjective (read: not objective), then where is its worth? If it's all just opinion, then who cares what one so-named "critic" thinks? How do we know that this person's criticism is worth listening to, especially if it's in direct conflict with our own thoughts on a series. Well, a couple key reasons, I would say.
First, it's the quality of the argument. If somebody says, "This series is good," you may be less likely to pay heed to them than someone who's written five pages on all the problems they had with the series. After all, literary criticism (an editorial, in essence) is a persuasive argument. Therefore, the quality of the criticism is in the argument's quality too. How well have they covered the related aspects? How thoroughly have they examined the material? How do they substantiate their thoughts with examples pulled directly from the material? Can they explain literary/storytelling conventions to those who are unfamiliar with them? Can they inform their audience of specifics beyond broad blanket statements? Two people can reach completely different conclusions (it is, after all, ultimately subjective); but so long as they adequately explain their reasoning, people are more likely to take the opinion seriously.
Of course, that's all fine and good, but that doesn't do much to address the thread's question. That's where the second major element comes in: Honesty.
We value people who are honest. Otherwise, we wouldn't get so frustrated with "professional" critics who take money in exchange for glowing reviews. That goes in line with persuasion as well. If you know someone's honest, there's a better chance you'll at least given them a listen than if you know their criticism is supplemented by ulterior incentives.
But then we have to ask, what does it mean when we tell people "don't present your opinion as fact"? We're telling people to acknowledge other that other people may have different opinions, presumably. But isn't that blindingly obvious? Of course people might have different opinions. That's the nature of opinions. Nobody needs to say "in my opinion" when giving an opinion. That's assumed.
Rather, asking someone to not do that means asking them to dance around the issues. If criticism is meant to be persuasive, then there needs to be a certain conviction. Presenting opinions as facts allows for that conviction to show through. Everyone knows that, ultimately, it's an opinion; but by presenting it the right way, a person's passion seeps through, and the real meat of the arguments become the highlights.
It seems to me that we ask people not to present opinions as fact as a means of validating our own. We don't like seeing different opinions, especially when those opinions are well-articulated. It makes our own feel "lesser," and that's an uncomfortable feeling. However, by telling someone to reaffirm that their opinion is indeed that, "just an opinion," it makes us feel like our opinions are at the same level; when in reality, it shouldn't be about the opinion's bottom line, but about the arguments used to reach said opinion.
Anyway, that's how I feel about the issue (after a conversation I had with someone which got a little heated after I may or may not have compared SAO to Twilight, lol). You guys should totally post your own feelings on the subject too. Since, you know, this is a discussion board and all.
The answer that immediately pops into everyone's heads is "bad," right? It makes sense. I mean, opinion and fact are two different things. Most everyone is in agreement on that. Put extremely simply, a fact is something that's definitive. 2+2=4. Bam. Fact. An opinion, meanwhile, is how you, as an individual, feel about something. Girls with snake tails are awesome (everybody gets 1 weird thing). Sure, that's true of me, but that doesn't make it automatically true for everyone else. People are different and have different tastes and all that fun opinion stuff.
But, while pretty much everyone admits that opinion and fact aren't the same thing, does that mean presenting opinions as facts is bad? The reason I ask this is because of a particular word: Presenting.
It's no secret that we value criticism in our media (especially when the criticism aligns with out personal views). However, if criticism is subjective (read: not objective), then where is its worth? If it's all just opinion, then who cares what one so-named "critic" thinks? How do we know that this person's criticism is worth listening to, especially if it's in direct conflict with our own thoughts on a series. Well, a couple key reasons, I would say.
First, it's the quality of the argument. If somebody says, "This series is good," you may be less likely to pay heed to them than someone who's written five pages on all the problems they had with the series. After all, literary criticism (an editorial, in essence) is a persuasive argument. Therefore, the quality of the criticism is in the argument's quality too. How well have they covered the related aspects? How thoroughly have they examined the material? How do they substantiate their thoughts with examples pulled directly from the material? Can they explain literary/storytelling conventions to those who are unfamiliar with them? Can they inform their audience of specifics beyond broad blanket statements? Two people can reach completely different conclusions (it is, after all, ultimately subjective); but so long as they adequately explain their reasoning, people are more likely to take the opinion seriously.
Of course, that's all fine and good, but that doesn't do much to address the thread's question. That's where the second major element comes in: Honesty.
We value people who are honest. Otherwise, we wouldn't get so frustrated with "professional" critics who take money in exchange for glowing reviews. That goes in line with persuasion as well. If you know someone's honest, there's a better chance you'll at least given them a listen than if you know their criticism is supplemented by ulterior incentives.
But then we have to ask, what does it mean when we tell people "don't present your opinion as fact"? We're telling people to acknowledge other that other people may have different opinions, presumably. But isn't that blindingly obvious? Of course people might have different opinions. That's the nature of opinions. Nobody needs to say "in my opinion" when giving an opinion. That's assumed.
Rather, asking someone to not do that means asking them to dance around the issues. If criticism is meant to be persuasive, then there needs to be a certain conviction. Presenting opinions as facts allows for that conviction to show through. Everyone knows that, ultimately, it's an opinion; but by presenting it the right way, a person's passion seeps through, and the real meat of the arguments become the highlights.
It seems to me that we ask people not to present opinions as fact as a means of validating our own. We don't like seeing different opinions, especially when those opinions are well-articulated. It makes our own feel "lesser," and that's an uncomfortable feeling. However, by telling someone to reaffirm that their opinion is indeed that, "just an opinion," it makes us feel like our opinions are at the same level; when in reality, it shouldn't be about the opinion's bottom line, but about the arguments used to reach said opinion.
Anyway, that's how I feel about the issue (after a conversation I had with someone which got a little heated after I may or may not have compared SAO to Twilight, lol). You guys should totally post your own feelings on the subject too. Since, you know, this is a discussion board and all.
Last edited: