Subject: Re: Daumier-Smith and Empathy
From: Tim O'Connor (tim@roughdraft.org)
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 13:36:17 GMT
Christopher Robin said:
> Im a new "fish" joined up after that bit on NPR I think it was.
A belated welcome, Chris!
>
> In short, this discussion about readers saying absolutes about
>what an author meant is a worthwhile one, but not to be overdone.
Good point. Moderation in this subject area, especially, would save
us from a lot of blood that has been shed on this here battlefield.
> Just a minor question, why does it take a great critic to stand
>bck and pick out patterns, maybe a high school calss of juniors
>could do the same thing. Id say that the "smart asses...up against
>a wall" shouldnt in anyform be put up against a wall, but should
>be taken lightly, after all, every thing that is said is only the
>persons opinion, dont pine over the little bits, just take the
>thought and see if it makes any sense.
I suspect that a large part of it is in how the "critic"
(professional or amateur; high-school level, college level, or
postgraduate; serious or casual) expresses the ideas and arguments in
the criticism. As many people (including Franny herself) have said,
it doesn't take a whole lot to be a "tearer-downer," and all too
often that's what "critics" fall into. I think that where the
high-schoolers fall into a trap is where they offer criticism without
much to back it up, whereas the more seasoned critic has learned to
include more than "it's good|bad|indifferent because I say so, and if
you won't listen to me you are discriminating against me because of
my age or my grade level."
That's how it seems to me, anyhow.
It seems that there are infinite ways of defining "a great critic,"
but for me, good criticism shows up when the critic demonstrates a
mastery of the subject; an ability to consider, and accept or reject,
opposing points of view; an ability to show that in creating the
criticism, these varying points of view have been taken into
consideration; and a nod to the notion that, in one way or another,
the critic's offerings may have deficiencies in themselves. One can
add to or subtract from this laundry list, but I humbly suggest that
this is at least a starting point.
> More to the point though, does it trully matter what that author
>was trying to say? Maybe they werent trying to say anything, or
>as ValÈrie put it, doesnt quite know themselves what was said. So
>long as you can find something and back it up with some grain of
>sanity, good for you.
I think it matters what the author got across in the work of
criticism, all intentions aside. If it works, great. If it fails,
it fails. If the author is a dolt, well, even dolts sometimes can
offer something of value to an ongoing discussion if the dolt in
question has an interest in the subject and the enthusiasm to put it
forth for us to read.
> I certainly did like taht last bit from scottie about the parrots
>hoping for an extra lump of sugar, very well said.
Yes, that was good, wasn't it?
--tim
-- - * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Sep 10 2001 - 15:29:40 GMT