From: matth@terapin.com (Matt Houlahan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.anime
Subject: Re: On Criticism, Popularity and Quality (an essay)
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:23:23 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <18k9lfINNol0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bn981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Ryan Mathews) writes:
>
>(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.

   I agree, everybody needs to blow off steam.

>
>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.

  Hmm, maybe sometimes (or alot of times) but I think that it really depends on
alot of other factors, like personality. Take a look at my neighbor for
example...
>
>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.

  You're being a bit cynical there, Ryan. Though alot of people today are very
critical, there are alot of genuinely nice, non-critical people around, who can
actually accept other opinions and leave them as just that, opinions...
>
>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.

   Well, that depends on who you're talking to. If the person in very
sensitive, obnoxious, or whatever, you may have an argument regardless, while
others wouldn't argue for large sums of money handede to them.
>
>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.

   Well, you gave the reason right there: you were very temperamental. Perhaps
she assumed that you would know that she was presenting an opinion. the fact
the she said it in a conversational tone of voice meant that she wanted a
discussion, NOT just to sit down and insult you publicly.
>
>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.

   Not at all. Maybe they are just presenting an opinion and leaving the IMHO
tag or whatever off because they don't feel that everybody is so sensitive that
they'd blow up at everything. The fact that you did see arguments doesn't
represent very much, considering the size of those two subs. I'm guessing tha
tonly a small portion of the people who read the subs actually got into the
argument, before it was an argument at least. While it was a discussion, I
think that most of the people who saw it either agreed with it or disagreed but
didn't take it offensively. It's nice to be polite, but you have to assume that
a certian degree of politness is automatically implied in the actual discussion
or else you will get a bunch of hot-heads scresming at each other, or the
buffering may get so out of control that no real discussion actually takes
place.

[stuff deleted]
>
>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.

   I disagree with you on the Top Gun point. I liked it and thought that it's
good points outweighed its bad ones. There. I just presented my opinion without
any conscious buffering and I cannot see any reason for you to blow up at me. I
do not imply that you are stupid for not liking it, or misled or whatever.
However, I didn't have to say, "Ryan, I'm terribly sorry, but I liked Top Gun.
IMHO it had many good points and IMHO it didn't have any bad points."  
   Now it looks like I'm humoring you indead of disagreeing with your opinion.
Granted, I went a bit overboard, but I'm sure you agree that all of that is not
needed.
    I haven't seen Earnest GTC, but it looks kinda lame. I didn't add a "too
me" on the end of my sentence, but I think that most people would just tack it
on.

>
>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. :-)
 
  Humility is nice in a discussion, but it can be overdone too easily. Take me
in Speech for example. Whenever I give a speech, I used to always go out of my
way to not piss anybody off and apologize to much. After a short while, my
classmates got really tired of it we got into more areguments because I was
being overly nice than if I had just said what I wanted. There's a downside to
this as well, that is the arrogance that cna be implied just as easily as
over-humility.
 
   In addition, when you are constantly saying "I feel/think/believe", you
greatly weaken the position of your opinion, in an argument or not and end up
having to be forceful to compensate.

For example, if I said something like  "now I understand that I'm alot younger
than you, and that these are only quickly-formed opinions, so I'll probably be
wrong anyway" at the end of this post, what would you think of it? Probably
just laugh and write it off.

Matt Houlahan  matth2terapin.com  Berkeley, CA 
***** "Hey, was that ANOTHER earthquake?" *****