How To Talk To A Critic (Assuming You Want To)
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I get this a lot for my (apparent) contradictory takes on music.
'Course, I'm not a critic and it's not my job, but I can sort of empathise.
OMG! People can evolve!
It's a weird and shocking revelation to some.
It does, however, make the accuser feel both better and validated. I think that's the main reason it's done. The "you think you're so smart" school of argument.
Spoken like a true Critic apologist!
...Just kidding. Really.
Bob, whilst I appreciate that this is a meaningful topic for you, with you having to deal with stupid emails on a daily basis etc., and that each of your points is well made and something I personally agree with, I have to say that this article as a whole comes off as a bit patronising to your audience.
Surely any fanmail, commentary or argument you receive is a validation of yourself as a critic? So wouldn't it be better to dwell on the feedback you receive in a constructive way rather than dwelling on, 'Jeez guys, I hate it when you do this...'? Especially if what you want to promote is civilised discussion.
As I said, I agree with the points you make, I just think the way you made them perhaps sounds a little condescending.
EvilPicnic gives MovieBob some etiquette tips.
Surely any fanmail, commentary or argument you receive is a validation of yourself as a critic? So wouldn't it be better to dwell on the feedback you receive in a constructive way rather than dwelling on, 'Jeez guys, I hate it when you do this...'? Especially if what you want to promote is civilised discussion.
As I said, I agree with the points you make, I just think the way you made them perhaps sounds a little condescending.
EvilPicnic gives MovieBob some etiquette tips.
1) First much? No, I kid.Zachary Amaranth said:
2)Only Pokemon can evolve, not people.
3) Yeah, that part about "I can't believe you forget to mnetion X" really grinds my gears. Even worse is when there are like 20 straight posts on forums mentioning the same thing. That whole "I'm not going to read anyone else's post before I get my tired opinion across" mentaility needs to end.
1. I have never had an issue with people being hypocrites unless they are hypocritical within a single argument. If their argument centers on the ideas that cheese is delicious and all dairy products are disgusting, well they are being hypocritical. If they once argued that all dairy products are disgusting but are now arguing that cheese is delicious, the former really only is important as something to cite to disprove the latter argument, not to show hypocrisy.
2. I think that it should become a fundamental law of time travel that there is no greater moron than one's past self and no greater dick than one's future self. It should be called the Karkat principle.
3. There is no excuse for ignorance Bob. That is why everyone except for murderers and rapists is all-knowing, and you don't want to be a rapist-murderer, do you Bob?
4. I really gt pissed off when people do this, more often then not because I have no clue what it is that is making them say this, what it is they know about the writer or critic that leads them to believe they know the writer's prejudices. Who really goes through all that trouble? It is kind of funny when people do this and are blatantly wrong in their assumptions though. Almost makes it worth it.
2. I think that it should become a fundamental law of time travel that there is no greater moron than one's past self and no greater dick than one's future self. It should be called the Karkat principle.
3. There is no excuse for ignorance Bob. That is why everyone except for murderers and rapists is all-knowing, and you don't want to be a rapist-murderer, do you Bob?
4. I really gt pissed off when people do this, more often then not because I have no clue what it is that is making them say this, what it is they know about the writer or critic that leads them to believe they know the writer's prejudices. Who really goes through all that trouble? It is kind of funny when people do this and are blatantly wrong in their assumptions though. Almost makes it worth it.
Hmmm, well Bob, you have to understand that your also dealing with a world in which "geek media" is increasingly being absorbed and subverted by the industries they report on, and this includes the critics. Not to mention the issue of politics and how the industry has been walking a tightrope of wanting to sell things like SOPA which upset fans, while at the same time fighting against legislature trying to regulate game content.
A lot of the accusations of hypocricy come from people noticing when a geek-personality they listen to, changes opinion in a way that reflects current politics and what the industry is pushing for, or a point it's trying to make. Saying you disapprove of a violent game in one place, but then approve of something very, very similar later, when the opinions move in time with the winds of the politics (either in support of, or opposition), it does tend to get noticed.
Likewise when someone reporting on geek media inserts their own political views into the analysis of the material, why they think something was made, or how it turned out, well that can seriously affect how someone views them and the integrity of their work. Doing things like trying to claim a continued racial bias in Hollywood as being part of the reason a movie turned out like it did (referancing something like your review of "Tower Heist") this can push some serious buttons when it's presented more strongly than something that is the opinion of a critic should be.
I get the impression that your feeling somewhat persecuted in writing this. As one of those who has questioned you heavily I will say flat out that if I didn't like you, feel it was worth the time, or enjoy your productions I wouldn't listen loyally every time they go up and bother to comment. At the same time however, you could probably reduce the criticisms, attacks, and whatever else your getting (which I assume come from people a lot ruder than me, I at least TRY and be polite and sensible within my own viewpoint) by focusing on geek media in of itself, and maybe SOME of the business aspects, without trying to toss out politics, and statements about Hollywood whitewashing of current movies, and similar things which you might personally believe, but are going to net serious disagreement and slot people off, especially when they are simply your own theories and suspicians. The way you state things might technically make it an opinion, but at the same time the way it's delivered makes it forceful enough to seem as it's being presented as a fact. A decent stage or speaking technique, but one that can easily backfire, and I think that is what your seeing here accross a lot of differant issues. Someone you slot off isn't going to care about you defending yourself on a technicality or specific phrasing. Especially seeing as I'm sure it clear to them (and probably you) how they arrived at a specific conclusion. Semantics make a very bad defense in any serious discussion or debate.
That's my thoughts at any rate.
A lot of the accusations of hypocricy come from people noticing when a geek-personality they listen to, changes opinion in a way that reflects current politics and what the industry is pushing for, or a point it's trying to make. Saying you disapprove of a violent game in one place, but then approve of something very, very similar later, when the opinions move in time with the winds of the politics (either in support of, or opposition), it does tend to get noticed.
Likewise when someone reporting on geek media inserts their own political views into the analysis of the material, why they think something was made, or how it turned out, well that can seriously affect how someone views them and the integrity of their work. Doing things like trying to claim a continued racial bias in Hollywood as being part of the reason a movie turned out like it did (referancing something like your review of "Tower Heist") this can push some serious buttons when it's presented more strongly than something that is the opinion of a critic should be.
I get the impression that your feeling somewhat persecuted in writing this. As one of those who has questioned you heavily I will say flat out that if I didn't like you, feel it was worth the time, or enjoy your productions I wouldn't listen loyally every time they go up and bother to comment. At the same time however, you could probably reduce the criticisms, attacks, and whatever else your getting (which I assume come from people a lot ruder than me, I at least TRY and be polite and sensible within my own viewpoint) by focusing on geek media in of itself, and maybe SOME of the business aspects, without trying to toss out politics, and statements about Hollywood whitewashing of current movies, and similar things which you might personally believe, but are going to net serious disagreement and slot people off, especially when they are simply your own theories and suspicians. The way you state things might technically make it an opinion, but at the same time the way it's delivered makes it forceful enough to seem as it's being presented as a fact. A decent stage or speaking technique, but one that can easily backfire, and I think that is what your seeing here accross a lot of differant issues. Someone you slot off isn't going to care about you defending yourself on a technicality or specific phrasing. Especially seeing as I'm sure it clear to them (and probably you) how they arrived at a specific conclusion. Semantics make a very bad defense in any serious discussion or debate.
That's my thoughts at any rate.
Pretty much all of that applies to the raging fanboy mentality too.
But I don't think the last point was really so bad. I mean everyone obviously has their own world view which in turn influences how they perceive or whether they like/dislike something. And people will naturally be be more likely to interpret something in a certain way, or enjoy something more if they can draw parallels from what they know.
For example, those who are knowledgeable about The Bible often say that a film or story is analogous, or at least comparable to The Bible, or a part of it. While this may be true, there are only really a very limited number of story types that can (or have) been told, and I'm sure all of them have come up somewhere in The Bible at some point. Through their world view they see the film in question as a re-telling of a Bible story. They're not necessarily wrong, but the parallel they see may only be superficial, since the story type can be seen in so many other places throughout history. But this person places emphasis on the similarities with The Bible because they are very knowledgeable of it and it has great meaning to them. To other people these similarities may not be apparent or relevant in any way, so will be inclined to disregard anything this person says on what I would consider reasonable grounds.
A bit part of being able to trust a critic for advice is getting to know what the tastes of the given critic are and how they relate to your own, so I see no problem in disregarding a critic who has a completely different world view than yourself. They would be useless in recommending you anything.
But I don't think the last point was really so bad. I mean everyone obviously has their own world view which in turn influences how they perceive or whether they like/dislike something. And people will naturally be be more likely to interpret something in a certain way, or enjoy something more if they can draw parallels from what they know.
For example, those who are knowledgeable about The Bible often say that a film or story is analogous, or at least comparable to The Bible, or a part of it. While this may be true, there are only really a very limited number of story types that can (or have) been told, and I'm sure all of them have come up somewhere in The Bible at some point. Through their world view they see the film in question as a re-telling of a Bible story. They're not necessarily wrong, but the parallel they see may only be superficial, since the story type can be seen in so many other places throughout history. But this person places emphasis on the similarities with The Bible because they are very knowledgeable of it and it has great meaning to them. To other people these similarities may not be apparent or relevant in any way, so will be inclined to disregard anything this person says on what I would consider reasonable grounds.
A bit part of being able to trust a critic for advice is getting to know what the tastes of the given critic are and how they relate to your own, so I see no problem in disregarding a critic who has a completely different world view than yourself. They would be useless in recommending you anything.
"Should be"? How strongly should a critic express their opinions, then?Therumancer said:
I think you're mistaking criticism for some kind of objective, empirical measure. With any work of art, that's impossible because so much of an opinion is going to be based on someone's own viewpoint and experiences. A critic is a (hopefully) well-informed, interesting and experienced person giving their viewpoint. Those views may or may not be politically informed. Whether they are or not, it's their viewpoint.
I actually really like the fact that Bob talks about this stuff. I think geek media in particular can do with more critical voices that think about the bigger picture in terms of politics and social justice. Any critic is just one voice, and it's having a variety of voices with a variety of points of view that make for vibrant, useful and entertaining criticism.
A review of mine for SoulCalibur V was posted on N4G.com. I ended up giving the game a 3.5/5 for reasons stated in the review. One of the first comments was the following - "Again, more "journalists" completely not getting what the point of a fighting game is and instead whining about story modes."
This brings me to one of my pet peeves. When people say that we must not 'get it.' It's lazy and makes the assumption that the reviewer doesn't understand the subject matter. Did I say it was a bad fighting game? Absolutely not. Did I ding it for a weak offline modes suite? Absolutely. The actual fighting is only a single part of a larger whole. I'm reviewing it as a whole.
It didn't help his cause that his avatar was Hilde.
Link to the original review if you're interested: http://www.pixlbit.com/review/514/soulcalibur_v_review
This brings me to one of my pet peeves. When people say that we must not 'get it.' It's lazy and makes the assumption that the reviewer doesn't understand the subject matter. Did I say it was a bad fighting game? Absolutely not. Did I ding it for a weak offline modes suite? Absolutely. The actual fighting is only a single part of a larger whole. I'm reviewing it as a whole.
It didn't help his cause that his avatar was Hilde.
Link to the original review if you're interested: http://www.pixlbit.com/review/514/soulcalibur_v_review
You're asking a lot from an audience that just wants critics to parrot what they think without them having to say it to provide validation in their lives (hey, I'm important because I like the same things as a self professed internet z-lister). God forbid we accept differing tastes, opinions, values, ect. These people just look for excuses to invalidate differing opinons, and the bias and hypocracy excuses are timeless and hard to invalidate, as we're all a little intelectualy inconsistant from time to time, and can very easially seem that way when you only have 5 minutes to talk while minimizing spoilers.
Granted this is the digital age, and any public opinion giver should be prepared to justify opinions that may not mesh with past ones. People can change thier minds, but a shift without explaination can lead a skeptical audience to think either a bias has come out, or a bribe has been made. Granted an inconsistant film critic is hardly an issue compared to, say, an inconsistant political pundant (when will these guys realize they're handing The Daily show material), but it is something to keep in mind.
Granted this is the digital age, and any public opinion giver should be prepared to justify opinions that may not mesh with past ones. People can change thier minds, but a shift without explaination can lead a skeptical audience to think either a bias has come out, or a bribe has been made. Granted an inconsistant film critic is hardly an issue compared to, say, an inconsistant political pundant (when will these guys realize they're handing The Daily show material), but it is something to keep in mind.
I'm sorry I'm a bit flabbergasted by this. You are saying this in response to something MovieBob has says? You know that guy who often puts ona stupid voice to imitate his perception of the oppositions view. The guy who said people who like Transformers shouldn't be allowed to vote. This is your champion of a society with a pluarity of views?Redd the Sock said:
Heh.... person A doesn't like person B's opinion because person A has a different one. What a surprise?
Personally, while reading the article one thing really popped into my head that seems like a good video game example. The QTE.
The Quick-Time Event (QTE) was a really cool thing when it was introduced 10 years ago and popularized by Shenmue. Many people thought it was really good idea. It had praises for it. Now, in 2012, everyone seems to hate it except for Quantic Dream.
Personally, while reading the article one thing really popped into my head that seems like a good video game example. The QTE.
The Quick-Time Event (QTE) was a really cool thing when it was introduced 10 years ago and popularized by Shenmue. Many people thought it was really good idea. It had praises for it. Now, in 2012, everyone seems to hate it except for Quantic Dream.
A few internet-critics of real-critics I have seen like to attack the real-critic because they claim the real-critic is bad mouthing for the sake of bad mouthing when in truth the internet-critic has glazed over, or missed the explanation real-critic gives for not liking something. That sentence may be too long.
Granted there have been a few critiques of yours (MovieBob) that I have not agreed with, but you always adequately explained why you thought they were failures.
Granted there have been a few critiques of yours (MovieBob) that I have not agreed with, but you always adequately explained why you thought they were failures.
Hey... it seems to me that you're pretty pissed off at some specific person who left a shitty comment on one of your pages. Instead of writing this long winded post, why don't you try addressing these people directly? By the way, how exactly DO you talk to a critic, because you seemed to have left that out of the article?