Criticism, In Good Faith and Bad

[mark_asphodel]

Note: this is not about fandom.  This is for the amusement and discussion of those who, like me, like to write about writing.  If you think this is aimed directly at you, you are quite wrong.  Whoever you may be.

Slate magazine, which has degenerated of late into a flurry of 'articles' like "I hate pie and you do too, admit it," still coughs

Comments

[amielleon]

So glad you put that note up there. I was going crazy with paranoia in anticipation.

Quite an interesting article. Incidentally, I recall quite a few reviews that had 1 stated in a rather clunky book-report way ("Fire Emblem is about a young hero who inherits his father's duty to save the world") -- it seems that "show not tell" can apply to even reviews.

It did raise something that should have been obvious that I didn't really think about. Reviews IRL are something read before the piece. I am so incredibly accustomed to writing things that are understood after reading the piece, thanks to the format of FFN.

[mark_asphodel]

So glad you put that note up there

I didn't want to see the kind of ripple effect that seem to follow posts on lit-crit in this fandom.

Reviews IRL are something read before the piece. I am so incredibly accustomed to writing things that are understood after reading the piece, thanks to the format of FFN.

Heh. Good point.

Of course, with reviewing fanworks, it's not often that we get the chance to even know what the author thinks the work is about, so there goes step #2.

[amielleon]

I interpreted what the book's author says about that thing the book is about as the stance toward the topic in #1, as conveyed by the book. So, 1 is "My Story is about unicorns" and 2 is "The author of My Story makes a statement through the story that unicorns are secretly evil" and 3 is "I think this is rad".

If the golden rules really mean to say that the author's externally conveyed intent must be respected in a review, I'm not sure I buy into it, since that discredits entire schools of thought in literary criticism.

[mark_asphodel]

Yeah, that's true. They probably don't mean to take externally conveyed intent into account.

Mind you, with some fanworks I don't know what the internally conveyed intent is, either. Also: Neon Genesis Evangelion.

[raphiael]

Awesome points.

I think what frustrates me most, on a lot of reviews I've read while looking into any form of media, is the failure of point 1. Either there's nothing there to tell me what it's actually about (which I guess works if, as Ammie said, you're looking for reviews after going through a work), or there's entirely too much and I feel spoiled going into it. Neither are really helpful, when what I really want to know is "what's it about?" and "is it worth looking at?"

Tangent - I think it's worthwhile to note, also, that these seem to be good earmarks for editing creative works. If you convey to the person you're editing for what you think they were getting at in the draft stages of things, it makes it very clear whether or not they're getting the intended point - be it plotline, tone, across.

I mean, we can say all we want that the writer's intent shouldn't matter, and that it should be in the eyes of the reader, but if, say, Fahrenheit 451 left readers saying "hey, society works just fine without books!", I can't

[mark_asphodel]

Modern reviews, of almost any media form, are so spoiler-ridden it hurts.

I think it's worthwhile to note, also, that these seem to be good earmarks for editing creative work

That's an excellent point.

[myaru]

If the review is not called a review, but rather a critical essay, or an editorial, do we run into the same problem? Author intent has a role to play in how one interprets reviews also, I would think. For example, I do a write-up on most of the books I read, and yet I'm not calling these posts reviews, nor do I intend them to be read that way. But I guess the line between "review" and "opinion" is thin, and maybe defined by the three cardinal rules above.

I've no idea what Twain called his wonderful piece of work, though. That was a fun read. :D

My feelings on that disclaimer up there are very mixed. I don't run around reading LJ entries as if they're all about me, and this emerging trend in which people do seem to do just that in our fandom is almost offensive. I'm tempted to get myself in trouble with another post on that topic.

[mark_asphodel]

Author intent has a role to play in how one interprets reviews also, I would think.

I'd also say that stated intent versus actual intent is a factor. Part of the reason that Twain is considered to be not playing fair is that he's using Cooper as a punching bag for an attack on early 19th century Romantic lit in general. Though that is a brilliant takedown and his rules are worth a discussion in themselves.

But I guess the line between "review" and "opinion" is thin, and maybe defined by the three cardinal rules above.Yeah, like the line between Roger Ebert and Mr. Cranky. Both are readable. Both are arguably necessary. Both have about the same level of accuracy, IMO. But one's a reviewer and the other is snarking for the sake of snark. I've read many of Ebert's one-star reviews, and you still generally come away with a sense of what the film's about, what the filmmakers thought they were trying to do, and how Ebert feels they pulled it off. Whereas my favorite Cranky review was merely "No. Fucking. Way." (for Spiceworld

[raphiael]

Butting in to say I've been feeling the same way about disclaimers lately- I actually had a pretty lengthy conversation with another friend about it and just posted something about it myself.
I think if it bugs you, you should say something. From the looks of it, you're not alone.

[mark_asphodel]

That makes at least three of us, then. I'm getting pretty pissed off by the increasing sense that it's somehow not acceptable to just give one's honest opinions. If that's the going to be case, then it's time to pack up and move on, you know?