>
>>
>> True -- more obvious to me with poetry than prose though.
>
>How so?  Poetry readings aside... the poem sits upon the page like any
other
>written text.
>
>>
>> Another way of saying it might be..."[film] criticism isn't about what
the
>> movie is about, but how it's about it." (Roger Ebert... whom I may have
>> slightly misquoted) ?
>
>Yeah, that's not a bad way to put it, either.
>
>
>
>You, my dear, have encountered the dreaded Critic Snob.  Shoot them on
sight.
>
>Yeah, they're totally a different breed than the academic lot.
>
>>
>> Which goes back to an earlier thought -- a writer writes to communicate.
So
>> Writer puts out text that communicates X. A reader brings to that
>> communication everything that they are and sees Y in it. I don't have a
>> problem with that. But if (and I'll remove the label of critic or non)
the
>> reader then tells me that X is really Y even though the Writer says "no
>> way" -- that's changing the basis of the communication.
>
>Mayhap the writer needs to be more clear.  The author is not Authority once
>that text is in other hands.  Frex: wrote a piece of fic the other week.
>Handed it off to my friend, who's been reading my stuff for aeons.  She
says
>'oh my god, I see THIS going on.'  Me:  'What?  Where?  Oh crap.  Oh
>well.  That's interesting.'  Now I can either go rewrite the story, or I
can
>deal with this reading out there I did not intend.  But what I cannot do is
go
>to my beta readers and say 'you must NOT think this about the story, I did
not
>intend it!'
>
>> It's the abuse of criticism I dislike, and it's a very narrow
>> line crossed easily. Perhaps to paraphrase... It's not what the criticism
is
>> about, it's about how it's critiqued.
>
>Fair enough.  It's also allowed to go on that way because people allow the
>critics to assume some kind of authority.
>
>> Sorry for bumping (crashing) up against a sore spot...
>
>It's OK.  I hit this on another forum the other week, so it's still a fresh
>bruise.    But y'all are friendlier.
>
>> Excuse me, but there's no way any rational person can
>> ascribe meaning to that that isn't entirely, utterly personal and totally
>> unconnected to anyone else who may view the art or even have created it.
>>
>
>It seems like the issue you have with critics is the tone of authority they
>assume.  Understandable.  In academic circles, you can use that tone all
you
>want... but you better have some kind of evidence in hand (textual,
>theoretical, something besides opinion) to get away with it.  I object to
>'popular' criticisms that don't show me a damned thing about *why* a text
is
>being critiqued as it is.  Like and dislike don't matter to me.  Those are
too
>subjective.  I can dislike a thing and appreciate it for its craft.  If
someone
>says 'this rock with a bump on it is a superb rendition of MutantQ's theory
of
>postmodernarchaic art' then cool, I can respect the critique even if I
think
>the art is crap from a totally personal standpoint.
>
>
>> Part of the reason I enjoy his reviews (and his analysis of films in
another
>> column he does) is because he brings the weight of his education and
>> experience to what he writes, explains why he sees X in the way a movie
>> illustrates its point, but never at any point does he say this is truely
>> what the film *is* -- only offers his perceptions of its reality. He
loves
>> to find the levels and details like you do -- and searches for them using
>> all the film knowledge he possesses to add to the experience. I can
totally
>> get on board with that... and film is just as worthwhile an art as
>> literature even if ppl do make (and pay money to see) Freddie Got
Fingered.
>>
>
>He's doing what I/we do here in Lit Crit land.  Now, mind, I *like* movies
he
>considers crap - and I can totally appreciate *why* he thinks they're crap,
>too.  They make me feel a certain way, so I like them.  But I won't say
he's a
>rotten critic for hating a movie I loved.    Gods know there are legions
of
>texts I've written about that I have hated, but I could pick out the
>techinically interesting parts.
>
>>
>> (but so nice to not be the one on a rant!  I usually am
... I get so
>> lonely... snuff sniff )
>>
>
>ah, I rant.  Just not often.  
>
>darkelf, ranting takes energy!
>
>=====
>Obsequium parit amicos; veritas parit odium.  - Cicero
>(Compliance produces friends; truth produces hate.)
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
>http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha