From: bn981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ryan Mathews)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.anime
Subject: On Criticism, Popularity and Quality (an essay)
Date: 9 Sep 1992 07:38:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bn981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ryan Mathews)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


(I whipped this off after thinking about the BGC thing going on
over here.  It's not anime-related, but I think it is relevant.)

You know, it's fun to criticize things.  I'm not sure why.
Sometimes, it's a form of catharsis, letting off steam.
You're pissed that you wasted your time, or even worse, your
money, participating in something that you didn't really
enjoy.  So ripping it apart with words feels good, sort of as
if you're fighting back at who or what wasted your time.

Other times, you aren't really that upset, but just giving
your views.  But it still feels good.  Why?  Perhaps because
you're doing the "right thing" by helping others to avoid
what you considered to be an unpleasant experience.  Or maybe
it's just communication itself that feels good.  Criticism
gives you a valid excuse to talk or write.

So, it's not surprising that everyone's a critic.  Someone
rather crude once said "Opinions are like assholes, everyone
has one, and they all stink."  I disagree.  I like discussing
opinions, provided one small rule is observed.

The rule is simply this:  "Thou shalt not present one's
opinions as facts."  Of course, this isn't always easy.
We usually believe our opinions to be fact; that's why we
hold them.  However, if this rule is not observed, there's
always the risk of taking what is a stimulating discussion
and turning it into an argument.

I remember when I was a freshman in college, I was about the
only person in the entire (small) dorm who liked Doctor Who.
Once, this lady student sat down behind me and said, in a
conversational tone-of-voice, something like "You know, this
show is *so* stupid.  I can't believe anyone would watch it."
Being even more temperamental then than I am now, I blew up
at her.  After she had left, the one other person in the room
told me that he thought I had been out of line: she had just
been expressing an opinion.  Well, that was true.  But she
had expressed it as a fact.  And behind the fact was an
incredibly rude implication: "If you're watching this, and
enjoying it, there must be something seriously wrong with
your head."

She didn't even have to include that second sentence.  It was
enough for her to publicly announce that the show that I was
enjoying was "stupid".  The implication is there.

Since then, I have made a habit of pointing this out on rec.
arts.startrek and rec.arts.comics.  On rec.arts.startrek the
argument took the form "Just because Star Trek: The Next
Generation gets great ratings, doesn't mean it's any good."
Sure.  And all the people who are watching the show, the
reason for those great ratings, are buffoons.  On rec.arts.
comics, the target was X-Men.  "Just because it's the best
selling comic every month doesn't mean it's worth reading."
The same argument applies.

My point here is that arguments like that should be buffered.
If the writers had just stuck the phrase "for me" at the end
of each of those statements, they would've been perfectly
true and not offensive in the slightest.  As it stands, they
imply that people who watch Next Generation and read X-Men
are somehow beneath them.  Maybe these people just have
different tastes.  Maybe they belong to a different age group
or just run with a different crowd.  You can't assume that
you're the only one who knows what's "really" good.

I've heard all the stuff about pandering to the so-called
lowest common denominator, and I've even been guilty of using
the term myself occasionally, but I don't truly believe in
it.  Oh, there's a LCD, alright.  We're all part of it,
otherwise it wouldn't be called "common".  I just don't
believe that appealing to that part of us can, by itself,
result in a money-making venture.  Well, okay, it can,
provided you don't spend too much.  But my point is that
you'll have a really tough time making a hit that way.  The
reason is simple: too many creators take that route.  And
since one piece of LCD-crap is like every other piece, you're
going to have to fight every other piece to get your share of
the audience.

I mean, look at movies.  Go to your local video store and
check out the action section.  It's filled with cheesy blow-
em-up flicks that you've never heard of, right?  So how come
there are only so many action films that *do* make it on the
hit list?  If pandering to the LCD is such a good route, this
rack should be chock-full of million-sellers.  (Advertising,
comes the obvious rebuttal.  But advertising can only get you
to see it once.)

Well, there must be something to those few.  They must be, in
some way, better than the others.  But since we've already
stamped every piece of LCD material with the label "crap",
that doesn't make sense.  "Good crap" looks like an oxymoron
to me, if ever I saw one.

The point I'm making is that it is absurd to argue that
something that is wildly popular is garbage.  "Not a piece of
art", I'll give you.  But it can't be utter garbage if so
many people watch it.  There must be something to it.  The
LCD just can't give you that share.

I thought TOP GUN was barely worth the $1.75 I paid to see
it.  I caught a little of ERNEST GOES TO CAMP on TV, and
still scratch my head over its popularity.  But both made
boffo bucks at the box office.  So, unless I fail to catch
myself in time, I won't argue that both movies suck, stink,
have no redeeming features, are garbage, crap, shit, what
have you.  I just figure that those movies have some kind of
appeal that I don't get.

That's the ticket in criticism, you know.  Humility.  Stating
your opinions as opinions, not fact.  "I think..."  "I
believe..."  "IMHO..."  Use these phrases and you'll start a
lot fewer arguments.  At least with me.  :-)

			---------- Ryan Mathews
-- 
Email: bn981@cleveland.freenet.edu      DISCLAIMER:  Any resemblence of this
Snailmail: 786 High Street              article to rational thought is
           Bedford, OH 44146            purely coincidental.