Yeeeah, if you put it that way (dubs are like fanon) it's hard to argue for the value of dubs because I dislike fanon and try to avoid it whenever possible. Like after watching or reading something that I really like, I'll try to avoid looking at anything related to that online because I don't want to read something like a ridiculous headcanon or shipping a pairing I'm not a fan of and then be unable to look at it the same way ever again. I can ignore it and try to forget it and stick to my own interpretation of the work, but it'll likely just be ruined for me forever.
Same with any adaptations, really; I firmly believe that any adaptation should follow the original medium as closely as possible. No embellishments, no cuts. Which is a bummer living in America where that's all that movies do... Like last weekend I saw the Desolation of Smaug and I was extremely disappointed and put off because I'm a big Tolkien fan and have dutifully read and reread The Hobbit prior to attending the movie, only to see that almost everything in there is padding and the parts that I *would* have liked to see, they cut out. I just don't think the Hobbit should be a trilogy, I mean the book is absolutely tiny; it just doesn't need three freakin' 2 hour movies. The first movie also had a lot of changes but I didn't mind them as much because rather than adding unnecessary material (which they did, but not to that great of an extent) they added characterization and made the characters into distinct individuals that made it more enjoyable to watch their interactions. The second movie also kind of had that, but it was so way off of the charts that it was annoying more than enjoyable. I mean, characterizing canon characters is okay, but characterizing all-new characters that don't even exist in the original story is beyond lame. One thing I can say for the movies is that they don't omit as many details as The Lord of the Rings movies--but I still view the latter as a better adaptation because despite having a few flops, it was pretty faithful to the books. I, um, didn't mean to turn this into a review of The Hobbit, but I do mean that I get the analogy of dubs being like adaptations, and being not canon in general.
But then subs aren't really canon either because some things just don't translate well and some pun or double meaning may be lost on the audience if they're only reading the translation. So the only way to really get the full experience of the anime would be to actually be fluent in Japanese and watch it raw, which isn't an option for a lot of fans.
How you watch your anime can also kinda depend on how much you like it, or how important it is to you. Like if I'm a big fan of something like Shiki, I would probably watch it in subs because I want to get the full experience, I want to know as much as I can about the plot and dissect it and re-dissect it in my head. I would watch it over and over again to try to catch details that I might have missed the time before. But if I'm watching something that I don't really care about, or just watching to catch a study break, and don't particularly care about deeper meanings or details then I might be inclined to try out the dub just because it's easier to listen to and I don't care as much about accuracy. But then if I don't need details or accuracy, why watch it in the first place?
Your argument against dubs is more solid than any others that I've seen, though; I can say I feel differently about dubs now. Most cases have their strongest point being that dubs sound unnatural and Japanese voice acting is more emotional. I'm kind of 'ehh' about that because I always considered it a cultural difference; I read that Japanese voice acting is more focused on going over the top, putting as much emotion as possible into the work, whereas English acting has always tried to make the acting sound as real-life as possible. So therefore, to someone who's used to the Japanese performances, English dubs *would* sound dull and stunted, even if the actors are really trying. With this logic, then, more calm shows with dialogue (like Shiki) would be easier to dub because there's not such a difference between vocal expression in the two languages. At the end when everyone starts shouting is when the English dub is at its worst.
no subject
Same with any adaptations, really; I firmly believe that any adaptation should follow the original medium as closely as possible. No embellishments, no cuts. Which is a bummer living in America where that's all that movies do... Like last weekend I saw the Desolation of Smaug and I was extremely disappointed and put off because I'm a big Tolkien fan and have dutifully read and reread The Hobbit prior to attending the movie, only to see that almost everything in there is padding and the parts that I *would* have liked to see, they cut out. I just don't think the Hobbit should be a trilogy, I mean the book is absolutely tiny; it just doesn't need three freakin' 2 hour movies. The first movie also had a lot of changes but I didn't mind them as much because rather than adding unnecessary material (which they did, but not to that great of an extent) they added characterization and made the characters into distinct individuals that made it more enjoyable to watch their interactions. The second movie also kind of had that, but it was so way off of the charts that it was annoying more than enjoyable. I mean, characterizing canon characters is okay, but characterizing all-new characters that don't even exist in the original story is beyond lame. One thing I can say for the movies is that they don't omit as many details as The Lord of the Rings movies--but I still view the latter as a better adaptation because despite having a few flops, it was pretty faithful to the books. I, um, didn't mean to turn this into a review of The Hobbit, but I do mean that I get the analogy of dubs being like adaptations, and being not canon in general.
But then subs aren't really canon either because some things just don't translate well and some pun or double meaning may be lost on the audience if they're only reading the translation. So the only way to really get the full experience of the anime would be to actually be fluent in Japanese and watch it raw, which isn't an option for a lot of fans.
How you watch your anime can also kinda depend on how much you like it, or how important it is to you. Like if I'm a big fan of something like Shiki, I would probably watch it in subs because I want to get the full experience, I want to know as much as I can about the plot and dissect it and re-dissect it in my head. I would watch it over and over again to try to catch details that I might have missed the time before. But if I'm watching something that I don't really care about, or just watching to catch a study break, and don't particularly care about deeper meanings or details then I might be inclined to try out the dub just because it's easier to listen to and I don't care as much about accuracy.
But then if I don't need details or accuracy, why watch it in the first place?
Your argument against dubs is more solid than any others that I've seen, though; I can say I feel differently about dubs now. Most cases have their strongest point being that dubs sound unnatural and Japanese voice acting is more emotional. I'm kind of 'ehh' about that because I always considered it a cultural difference; I read that Japanese voice acting is more focused on going over the top, putting as much emotion as possible into the work, whereas English acting has always tried to make the acting sound as real-life as possible. So therefore, to someone who's used to the Japanese performances, English dubs *would* sound dull and stunted, even if the actors are really trying. With this logic, then, more calm shows with dialogue (like Shiki) would be easier to dub because there's not such a difference between vocal expression in the two languages. At the end when everyone starts shouting is when the English dub is at its worst.