From: steyn@cs.rochester.edu (Gavin Steyn)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.anime
Subject: Re: On Criticism, Popularity and Quality (an essay)
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:49:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

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

>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.

>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. 

But everyone reading KNOWS that it's supposed to be your opinion.
I mean, none of us here claim to speak _ex cathedra_.  Why should
I throw in IMHOs attached to every sentence I write?  Read any
professional book, movie, music, whatever, review, and count how
many times the reviewer says, "of course, this is all just my
opinion."  I gurantee there won't be too many.  

  Another thing, is that people shouldn't be quite so quick to 
take offense at criticism.  It may not be always meant as an insult.
For example, I like watching the Dirty Pair.  I also think it's
a immature show.  When I call it immature, it doesn't mean that I
think people who are watching it are immature--it means exactly
what it says, that the show appeals to the less mature side of
ourselves.


>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."

Of course, it is nice for critics to have some tact...  But 
putting IMHOs wouldn't help in a case like this.  Would it have
helped if she'd said "I think this show is so stupid that in my
opinion anyone who watches it is stupid"?

>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.

Well, they may not believe that the people are buffoons.  They
MAY believe that the people don't realize that there's better
stuff out there.  (X-Men is a good example; everyone I know
who used to read it, and tried more alternative stuff in
college dropped the titles like a hot potato.  In cases like
that, I think I'm pretty justified in guessing that others would
do the same).

>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.

While something that appeals only to the LCD may or may not make
money, it's also true that things that appeal too high above that
LCD rarely make a lot of money.  (Yes, I know there are exceptions, but
not too many).  This is upsetting to those of us who like to see
see stuff aimed at a mature audience once in a while.

>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.

It's not absurd at all.  Heck, history is full of wildly popular stuff
that is never heard from again.  For example, look no farther than
Salieri, a name that's convenient because of the movie _Amadeus_.
There's also the guy who's name I've forgotten who they name annual
bad writing contests after; he was pretty hot in his day.  I could
list more names, but it would be pretty pointless, since most of them
have been forgotten, which is the whole point.

>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.

Or maybe they don't.  They may have just tapped into some feeling
that was popular at the time;l they may have just been lucky; there
are tons of other factors here.  (I haven't seen either one, except
for bits of Top Gun, so I'm not commenting on the movies themselves).
Or maybe they were aimed at 16-year olds, did really well in that 
demographic range, and would bore anyone over 21.  Some fantastically
successful stuff falls into that category, because 16-year olds
have disposable income and time to spend on movies, comics, etc.

>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.  :-)

Your writing will also be much more insipid, unless you use those 
phrases pretty sparingly.  Which may not cause arguments, just 
boredom.

Gavin Steyn
steyn@cs.rochester.edu
"So he's had the lifelong ambition of reversing the polarity of the earth?"