About 82% of Everyone in Blogland is upset about Richard Schickel’s cranky dismissal of bloggers’ critiques. Lileks did a fairly good job of fisking the fellow, so I won’t bother.
I would, however, like to point out that I think pieces like Schickel’s are fantastic. They’re the writerly equivalent of one of those scenes in a civil rights movie where the politely restrained white person breaks (around act three or so) and unleashes a diatribe of racist invective–leaving no doubt in the viewers’ minds that the Kindly White Character’s niceness was a facade and that the heart of bigotry is pumping undiluted poison through the system.
Folks like me talk alot about the Great Snob Divide in our culture. Some of that may be sour grapes on our part. We didn’t get into Harvard and we didn’t get into UCLA film school, so we have to whine about how great those schools aren’t. Really, though, I think one of the scariest things about the world of Blogs is how it gives lie to the Myth of Betters. It’s got to be intimidating to the Schickels of this world that there are puppies without pedigree who are just as cute.
But the real dilemma here is the value of knowing. What is knowing in post-modern culture? The gist of Schickel’s piece* is that some people are better-suited to be critics because their opinion is formed through education, experience and erudition. Those opinions are then of more value and should carry greater weight. What an insecure position to hold! And how bullying!
Opinion is one person’s evaluation of an experience. It is not fact. The danger of our over-educated, self-satisfied culture is that too many people mistake their opinion for the ultimate in truth. They attempt to validate this by offering their opinions’ curricula vitae as though that makes fact. “I didn’t like this movie. I’ve studied movies for years at the Greatest Movie School Ever and have read 800 books about movies, many of which I will quote to ensure you that I do, indeed, know things about movies. That means this is a bad movie.” Of course, all the people who bought tickets to the last Pirates Of the Caribbean film disagreed with those critics. They thought it was a good movie. So is the movie good or bad? Who knows. It’s a matter of opinion.
To be sure, there are still facts. The sun is hot. Water boils at 212 degrees celsius fahrenheit. But so much of our dialogue is comprised of opinion–both filtered and unfiltered by education–and it’s a shame that some of us don’t realise that we’ve skated for years on offering our wordy opinions for money. Don’t look now, Schickel, but for every one of you being paid to snoot all over the paper there are about twenty-five thousand of us who realise that opinions are exactly like a…holes. Everybody has one and most people don’t get paid to show theirs in public.
*I’m not linking directly to the Schickel piece because why should I? Who wants to participate in the irony of the LA Times getting increased web traffic by insulting the web? Not me, thanks.
update Magniloquence asks the question “Who gets to have an opinion” about a completely different topic. Yet, still, eerily the same.
[...] Indeed: Folks like me talk alot about the Great Snob Divide in our culture. Some of that may be sour grapes on our part. We didn’t get into Harvard and we didn’t get into UCLA film school, so we have to whine about how great those schools aren’t. Really, though, I think one of the scariest things about the world of Blogs is how it gives lie to the Myth of Betters. It’s got to be intimidating to the Schickels of this world that there are puppies without pedigree who are just as cute. [...]
Uh, water boils at 100 degrees Celsius.
I dunno, Kat. The critics didn’t say that Pirates2 was no good because they had great education in film; they said that Pirates2 was no good because it went on too long, was short on the wit that made the first one so much fun, and jerked the viewer around with a million false endings.* That is, they told you what they found not to like about the movie. That’s what critics do: they tell you their reactions and the basis, in the thing being critiqued, for those reactions. Some do it better than others (the late Pauline Kael loved a lot of movies I hated, and hated a lot of movies I loved, but I could always tell from reading her reviews whether I would love, hate, or not care about the movie in question). Some do it well after long years of training, some need no training at all (though even there they tend to do better after having more experience), and some folks can get trained for years and still not have the touch. But I don’t want to get some random person’s review, I want to find out what someone whose judgement I have reason to trust thinks. I might find that authority by reading a blog or by reading a newspaper or whatever, but why should I take some random blogger’s word for it just because?
* I watched it anyway, because the first one had been soooo good that I thought even a fall-off would entertain me, but I decided that the critics had been right in the first place.
I agree with Kat (partially).
What we have here is a confusion of the “craft” of the performance arts, and the “art” of it.
I once took a lot of heat for saying that Brittney Spears’ “Hit Me Baby, One More Time” was a great song. And, as a songwriter, I think I’m standing on firm ground. It is well crafted: the bassline, especially in the verses, is top notch, the phrasings are exquisite, the “hook”, perfect.
But that’s just songcraft, and inside baseball. In the end, it’s an oversexualized teenybopper song that sucks. Sometimes you have to stop analyzing the magician’s methods and ask yourself if the the trick is entertaining, no matter how neat you think his methods are.
Uh, water boils at 100 degrees Celsius.
I could pretend that I did that on purpose.
Or I could tell the truth and admit that I was thinking “fahrenheit” but typed celsius.
But I don’t want to get some random person’s review, I want to find out what someone whose judgement I have reason to trust thinks.
But still, you’re reading opinion and valuing it through the lens of your own opinion. I’m not saying that random bloggers are better than columnists or that columnists are better than bloggers.
There are still people whose opinions I enjoy more because I agree with them, they are well-written, or both.
Take the Pirates movie as our running example: I thought it was fun and I enjoyed it. I loved the multiple endings and I thought there were plenty of moments of humour.
[...] Knowing The gist of Schickel?s piece* is that some people are better-suited to be critics because their opinion is formed through education, experience and erudition. Those opinions are then of more value and should carry greater weight. … [...]
Uh, water boils at 100 degrees Celsius.
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
But, see, you read a review that said “yuck, multiple endings” in slightly fancier words, thought to yourself “but I like multiple endings” and went to see the movie. So, in fact, the reviewer was giving you the information you needed.
I have friends with tastes very similar to mine in music, TV, or whatever, and I’ve swapped opinions with some of them for years. I still wouldn’t buy a CD just because one of them said “I like this CD” or even “I think you would like this CD” unless I got some explanation of why.
Did Shickel say that only professional critics do this (or even claim that all of them do)? If so, I understand your annoyance. If not, then what was he saying that you disagreed with?
I’m with nm on this one.
I didn’t read the Shickel piece and I suspect it’s got plenty of non-sense in it, but training, education, and experience do play a part in being an effective critic. Anybody can watch a movie and say “I liked that” or “I didn’t like that” but to articulate WHY something was good or bad isn’t a trait so widely shared.
I dated a guy who probably spent a good third of his life watching movies, and I can tell you he could talk about what was going on in a movie like nobody I’ve ever seen. In the 6 or 7 months we dated, my own knowledge and ability to intelligently speak on films increased. Just through the sheer volume I watched in the 6 or 7 months we dated, I began to notice various dramatic and cinematic devices and tools being utilized where previously I would have just thought “well that was a good movie” without a clue beyond that. Not that I’m anywhere near where a professional critic should be.
It’s true one doesn’t have to be a “pro” to talk intelligently about movies, and it’s true that many of the “pros” can’t talk intelligently about movies, but I wouldn’t be so quick to write off that particular kind of education and experience as nothing more than an opinion.
For the record, Pirates 2 was terrible in my opinion.
Yeah, sometimes Kat’s just wrong.
I am looking forward to 3, though.
Oh, and Kat, am I right in remembering that you’re a Josh Malina fan, like me? Because he’ll have a new series in the fall: Big Shots. You now know as much about it as I do.
Dear Schickel,
Two words: Michael Medved
Two more: Gene Shalit
but training, education, and experience do play a part in being an effective critic. Anybody can watch a movie and say “I liked that” or “I didn’t like that” but to articulate WHY something was good or bad isn’t a trait so widely shared.
True. But there’s a difference between saying “to articulate WHY something was good or bad isn’t a trait so widely shared” and
“And we have to find in the work of reviewers something more than idle opinion-mongering. We need to see something other than flash, egotism and self-importance. We need to see their credentials. And they need to prove, not merely assert, their right to an opinion.”
—–
Call me crazy. We already know that I tend toward libertarian populism in general. But since when did anyone have to “prove…their right to an opinion”?
See, I understand that you need to prove your worthiness of an audience. People won’t read you or comment on your thoughts if they aren’t attracted by something–your humour, your intelligence, your innately consistent wrongness–and they won’t take your opinions seriously if you don’t bring some variety of “it” to the table.
But everyone has a right to his or her opinion. They should be able to hold their opinion without having to wave a bibliography and footnotes behind that opinion.
A lot of what Schickel said is not unreasonable. (In my opinion.) But that’s where he lost me…in that belief that you don’t have a right to an opinion unless other people’s opinions think your opinion is good enough.
I read a summary of Ayn Rand’s views on art critics last summer. In short, she said ‘who are they to say what art is? And what makes them so important?’.
I don’t care much for Rand but I did enjoy the fact that she took the intellectual snobs down a few pegs. Wish I could remember more of it though.
I think you may be missing the unstated end of that sentence (I assume it’s Schickel’s): “They need to prove … their right to an opinion [that they expect anyone else to take seriously].” Of course, everyone has the right to have an opinion, but I have the right to ignore anyone’s opinion if it isn’t telling me anything besides “I like X.” (Unless it’s the opinion of someone I might need to buy a present for at some time, in which case I’ll make a note of it.)
I think Rand was more saying that she was better than any of those snobs than arguing against snobbery. But that’s just my opinion of her general world-view….
think you may be missing the unstated end of that sentence (I assume it’s Schickel’s): “They need to prove … their right to an opinion [that they expect anyone else to take seriously].”
Probably. I’m still steaming over the fact that he dismissed Philip K. Dick as twaddle. That’s a hot button for me, because I hate literary critics who refuse to see the merits in genre fiction. Period.
To me Schickel’s piece is just a continuation of that argument–that there is a divide between the opinions of the unwashed and the anointed and that only the opinions of the anointed truly matter.
I have the right to ignore anyone’s opinion if it isn’t telling me anything besides “I like X.
Well of course you do. Why wouldn’t you?! But I think you probably see the difference between “I will ignore Kat’s opinion about the Pirates movie because I don’t agree with her philosophies on what makes a movie good and/or bad” and “Kat’s got no business putting her opinion in print and expecting anyone to read it, because she’s not been to Film School.”
I think Rand was more saying that she was better than any of those snobs than arguing against snobbery.
Sounds about right. But it still makes the point about opinion.
Forgot to add: I also think that there are many well-educated people who are the converse of Shickel’s rule….they are so educated that they can’t write concise and entertaining reviews of a product. Everything is dull and overlong and weighted with quotes from Plato and Ruskin. Why is that more worthy than Stephen King’s pithy pieces at the back of EW, or Lileks’ Bleat? It’s not. To me, anyway.
He WHAT? Off with his f**king head, man!
As for the rest of it, it depends on the context, doesn’t it? In a philosophy journal or art history magazine, Plato and Ruskin are part of the background the readers can be assumed to have. Stephen King might be out of place. (Although I’m guessing that he could manage to suit his style to the audience, because that’s a skill he’s got. Ahh, Steven King. I saw him once, still on crutches from his accident, at a Steve Earle show, wearing a Marah t-shirt. But if he couldn’t have told you why he liked Marah, what would the point have been?)
Ha! Yes, we did wind up saying pretty much the same thing. I’ll admit that I haven’t read any of the Schickel kerfluffle but (very) tangentially… I’ve been so preoccupied with the FFF thing that my hands are still sore. And I haven’t sorted the mail in two days. Heh.
Of course, all the people who bought tickets to the last Pirates Of the Caribbean film disagreed with those critics. They thought it was a good movie.
Technically, you’d have to ask them afterwards. Buying tickets just meant they were brought in by the advertising or goodwill from the last movie.
All of that being said, I prefer the more ‘ordinary guy’ critics/bloggers. They look for the same things in a movie as I do (i.e. being entertained) rather than something a critic might (framing, Deep Meanings, etc).