Question about criticism
Increasingly, in my adventures among the assholes on message boards, I'm coming up against a bias in the theory of the critique that seems to be at the heart of why I find fault where others go along.
So my question is, regardless of the work being criticized: when you critique something, do you use non-diegetic information to inform your critique? Does knowing something about the production of a work that does not explicitly come up in the work qualify as a point worthy of comparison/interest within a critique of that work? If I know that a writer changed a development at the last minute, or that an actor had a specific reason to play a scene the way she did, can I critique the story produced with that information?
My theory is, duh, yes you can. The better academic papers on literary and film criticism don't operate in a vacuum of narrative and only narrative. They consider things that affect the way the narrative plays out--who made it? what were the times like during which the film was made and how did they feel about the time period of the film? was the work planned out in advance or cobbled together at the last minute?--in their assessment of the work and in judging whether it was a success or failure. Nowadays, we have an inter-connected media system that makes knowing absolutely nothing about the production of films or television all but impossible. Even the unplugged know who Julia Roberts is, say, and what she would bring to any film. We know what to expect from a Sue Grafton novel. J.J. Abrams' name means something to some people. Before they commit one bit of creative effort to a project, we have preconceived notions about them. Those might not be worth investigating (then again, in looking at, say, gay characters in the movies, it's always informative to consider which actors/actresses were open or closeted at the time of a production), but more detailed, specific bits of information like knowing an actor fought with a director; that two actors disliked each other; that three writers were called in to fix a previous script; etc. have a very concrete impact on a story. I think it's fair to analyze that story's success or failure with those things in consideration.
People on message boards argue otherwise. They're positively stifling this sort of integrated criticism, which I thought, some years since my last class on the subject, was old hat for critics. Not only old hat but expected. Talk to me, F-List. Am I wrong?
So my question is, regardless of the work being criticized: when you critique something, do you use non-diegetic information to inform your critique? Does knowing something about the production of a work that does not explicitly come up in the work qualify as a point worthy of comparison/interest within a critique of that work? If I know that a writer changed a development at the last minute, or that an actor had a specific reason to play a scene the way she did, can I critique the story produced with that information?
My theory is, duh, yes you can. The better academic papers on literary and film criticism don't operate in a vacuum of narrative and only narrative. They consider things that affect the way the narrative plays out--who made it? what were the times like during which the film was made and how did they feel about the time period of the film? was the work planned out in advance or cobbled together at the last minute?--in their assessment of the work and in judging whether it was a success or failure. Nowadays, we have an inter-connected media system that makes knowing absolutely nothing about the production of films or television all but impossible. Even the unplugged know who Julia Roberts is, say, and what she would bring to any film. We know what to expect from a Sue Grafton novel. J.J. Abrams' name means something to some people. Before they commit one bit of creative effort to a project, we have preconceived notions about them. Those might not be worth investigating (then again, in looking at, say, gay characters in the movies, it's always informative to consider which actors/actresses were open or closeted at the time of a production), but more detailed, specific bits of information like knowing an actor fought with a director; that two actors disliked each other; that three writers were called in to fix a previous script; etc. have a very concrete impact on a story. I think it's fair to analyze that story's success or failure with those things in consideration.
People on message boards argue otherwise. They're positively stifling this sort of integrated criticism, which I thought, some years since my last class on the subject, was old hat for critics. Not only old hat but expected. Talk to me, F-List. Am I wrong?