Question about criticism

[trinityvixen]

Increasingly, in my adventures among the assholes on message boards, I'm coming up against a bias in the theory of the critique that seems to be at the heart of why I find fault where others go along.

So my question is, regardless of the work being criticized: when you critique something, do you use non-diegetic information to inform your critique? Does knowing something about the production of a work that does not explicitly come up in the work qualify as a point worthy of comparison/interest within a critique of that work? If I know that a writer changed a development at the last minute, or that an actor had a specific reason to play a scene the way she did, can I critique the story produced with that information?

My theory is, duh, yes you can. The better academic papers on literary and film criticism don't operate in a vacuum of narrative and only narrative. They consider things that affect the way the narrative plays out--who made it? what were the times like during which the film was made and how did they feel about the time period of the film? was the work planned out in advance or cobbled together at the last minute?--in their assessment of the work and in judging whether it was a success or failure. Nowadays, we have an inter-connected media system that makes knowing absolutely nothing about the production of films or television all but impossible. Even the unplugged know who Julia Roberts is, say, and what she would bring to any film. We know what to expect from a Sue Grafton novel. J.J. Abrams' name means something to some people. Before they commit one bit of creative effort to a project, we have preconceived notions about them. Those might not be worth investigating (then again, in looking at, say, gay characters in the movies, it's always informative to consider which actors/actresses were open or closeted at the time of a production), but more detailed, specific bits of information like knowing an actor fought with a director; that two actors disliked each other; that three writers were called in to fix a previous script; etc. have a very concrete impact on a story. I think it's fair to analyze that story's success or failure with those things in consideration.

People on message boards argue otherwise. They're positively stifling this sort of integrated criticism, which I thought, some years since my last class on the subject, was old hat for critics. Not only old hat but expected. Talk to me, F-List. Am I wrong?

Comments

[jendaby.livejournal.com]

You are not wrong. Knowing the backstory behind the story not only helps to inform the viewer on why certain decisions were made, it also gives a more human aspect to the production. Sometimes people get so blinded by "HOLLYWOOD" that they are unable to consider that they're watching real people with quirks and flaws up there.

I prefer the extra information. I find it no different than a sportscaster mentioning what an NCAA baller is majoring in, or the Spring training record of the rookie pitcher for a baseball team. The baheind-the-scenes look, as it were. It makes reviews much more informative and interesting. I think you have just found a pocket of naysayers online. They have no idea what they are talking about.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I prefer the extra information. I find it no different than a sportscaster mentioning what an NCAA baller is majoring in, or the Spring training record of the rookie pitcher for a baseball team. The baheind-the-scenes look, as it were. It makes reviews much more informative and interesting.

As I said, we're also in the midst of a media integration unlike any other. We have television shows that have online content--web-only episodes, for example--and spin-off content in other media (comics, tie-in novels, video games). At this point, we're still not enforcing a direct requirement that people take in all aspect of a fictional work to understand it--you can watch a show or a movie and see all the extras or not, but the extras remain extra. I think that will change as we find a new means of supporting media distribution more widely to consumers.

And I'm positive that if you're professionally or academically considering fictional works, leaving out that extra information is like writing a dissertation on a book you never finished. You can draw limits--rely on web series but not tie-ins produced after the fact--but you have to state those limits upfront and if you do accept that you may be made to look foolish by ignoring some major development that was forwarded in the media you didn't consider. That's the flip side of extras that exist after the major text of the narrative is over--the story may not end just because the show did. If you're serious about critiquing the whole narrative, you might need to go get the rest of the story. If you're just doing film, fine. But "just doing film" is an increasingly isolated sort of critique.

And, as you said, less interesting!

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

Meh.

I think the contextual information about the authors and performers, etc. that you mention is absolutely fair game. But I think that things like "webisodes" and spin-off/tie-in series, etc. are not valid as a way to produce legitimate works. Let alone a valid subject for criticism. Of course you can profitably examine things like rough drafts, old editions, etc., but if a work is not capable of sustaining serious analysis based solely on what is in the text, then it's simply not finished. And trying to throw in ret-cons or alternate storylines etc. by forcible insertion through means of alternate-media tie-ins (webisodes, anyone?) is sheer laziness, lack of planning, and lack of skill on the part of the creative team.

Look, if I do a movie whose ending utterly mystifies people, but I complete the "work" with, say, a spray-painted graffiti screed on the wall of a warehouse in Brooklyn... then I'm a douche, end of story, and anyone interpreting or criticizing my work would be totally correct to do so based solely on the movie.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I think that creators understand their obligations to finish their major stories within the main body of their creation. But that doesn't mean that the tie-ins, et al. that they also do are irrelevant. They're just the next chapter or are deeper insights into the world they built. It can be obnoxious, true, but we're getting to that point where we accept that some of these things are fine and are acceptable means of continuing fictional worlds that we enjoyed.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

I think that any complete criticism of a work has to include all those things, but I think the work should be looked at as an entity unto itself as well. In other words, I think trying to shut down a criticism of the finished product with behind the scenes info is wrong. Ultimately, you're left with the final product and the creators' intentions don't matter.

For example, I think it's interesting to know that J.K. Rowling thought of Dumbledore as gay when writing him, but ultimately, I think if you look at the books, it doesn't really matter what she was thinking--he has no defined sexuality in the text. So I would completely defend a reading of it with him as straight.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I think that any complete criticism of a work has to include all those things, but I think the work should be looked at as an entity unto itself as well. In other words, I think trying to shut down a criticism of the finished product with behind the scenes info is wrong. Ultimately, you're left with the final product and the creators' intentions don't matter.

I totally agree. I feel like authorial intent matters less than the result, even if authorial intent informs upon the story. But I would think someone who didn't even address the fact that JK Rowling said Dumbledore was gay in looking into sexuality in her books--even if they said there was no basis or argument either way to make it relevant--as being less than informed on the subject.

So, yes, you can critique a work solely on its merits, but critiques that are more integrative aren't wrong. It would also help that if you're judging from only the show's world that you specify which parts of the show world count--do the comics count? The webisodes? The tie-ins? Why do they count or not? If only the show counts, presumably the webisodes wouldn't count because they are entirely extraneous and never change the narrative of the show. (Which would, in BSG's case, make the issue that was at stake in my last post even more ridiculous because it would cut the number of gay relationships in half not to count the webisodes.)

[oblvndrgn.livejournal.com]

We were just discussing this at dinner the other day, actually. You read a book about a minority character that completely conforms to negative stereotypes about them and their lives. If you're a member of that minority group, this book is edgy, confrontational, and compelling. If you're not a member of that minority, you're a racist/sexist/homophobe/etc. I question whether this work can actually be 'ist' or not if the only way you have of knowing that is out-of-world knowledge about the author.

I think being aware of non-diegetic information is all well and good as supporting rationale. That is, "Another reason this show hates the gays is this press release by the chief writer stating, 'Boy I hate those gays.'" If the -only- rationale you have to support a point is outside the work itself, I think it fails as a compelling argument.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

You're saying that you can use the extra information as a supportive but not declarative statement. I could get behind that as a general rule.

As for the example of the minority group seeming to be vilified or upheld depending on the reader, I'm not sure I agree. A lazy writer can, through his/her work, make some pretty inflammatory statements about a group without being conscious of it, but I still call that bias whether it's targeted at me or not. It's how those statements are used that determines whether they are just insults. It's what separates the satires from the pieces of shit. (This post (http://ivy03.livejournal.com/431917.html) of ivy03 comes to mind.) Smart writing won't make racist/sexist/biased statements without any purpose--they'll use it to draw conclusions about the people saying it. Otherwise, those statements provide conclusions about the author.

[oblvndrgn.livejournal.com]

I wrote poorly, I was actually referring to the -author- being part of the minority or not. Means I should go to sleep instead of reading LJ! The example we were talking about was the fake memoirs of someone from the street who turned out to be white and middle class. My point was more that the work should be racist or not by itself and not depending on the author.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Ah, now we agree completely. Sometimes the worst racist/sexism comes from the internalization by the oppressed. Sad, but true. Being a rep of that minority doesn't make you immune from criticism, nor does it necessarily make you an expert.

[viridian.livejournal.com]

I am strange in that I do not give a hell about "authorial intent" and would like to strangle people who bring it into critique of a printed work of fiction, but I want to know and use all this shit when it comes to a filmed work.

I'm not sure why that is, though it probably has something to do with film and tv being a product of a greater number of possibly conflicting intentions and necessarily involving the wrangling of more REAL people than a novel does.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure why that is, though it probably has something to do with film and tv being a product of a greater number of possibly conflicting intentions and necessarily involving the wrangling of more REAL people than a novel does.

And I can totally be forgiving of that, too, you know? I don't have to use every bit of flotsam I pick up against the show. Gossip doesn't deserve to make it into a proper critique. People flipping out and leaving the show doesn't make the show responsible for their loss.

For example, I'm really sorry Billy left because he, not Tory, could have been one of the Final Five and that would have been amazing. But I don't think BSG is to blame for that. I won't shout to the heavens about how stupid the episode where he died was because I recognize that the actor wanted off. I can certainly talk about how that actor leaving created a place for a woman--an Indian woman--to step into a role that would later turn out to be very significant. How did that casting change affect who became Cylons? That's a fair bit of extra information to bring into a critique, I would say, and it wouldn't bring in any back-biting.

Authorial intent is a tricky question--unless the author is on record, our critiques only speculate as to intent and back up such speculation with evidence we believe supports our claim. But that doesn't make it so and more than these assholes telling me to sit down and take what female characters I get and like it makes their claims that the show is feminist true. Even authorial intent is suspect because authors can be as blind as anyone to what they intended. They can't even be sure that what they intended made it across to the reader (unless they're very, very good) or that what made it across to the reader was the thing they intended, you know? They can say "It's a transformative work about life and death," but if they make House of the Dead the movie, it's still a shitty movie with no direction, isn't it?

[jlc.livejournal.com]

For example, I'm really sorry Billy left because he, not Tory, could have been one of the Final Five and that would have been amazing. But I don't think BSG is to blame for that. I won't shout to the heavens about how stupid the episode where he died was because I recognize that the actor wanted off. I can certainly talk about how that actor leaving created a place for a woman--an Indian woman--to step into a role that would later turn out to be very significant. How did that casting change affect who became Cylons? That's a fair bit of extra information to bring into a critique, I would say, and it wouldn't bring in any back-biting.
I'm not going to engage in back-biting, but why does the situation with an actor wanting to leave excuses the stupidity of an episode of television? While it's interesting background for a discussion of the episode, it doesn't change something fundamental: the episode that aired failed. Since other shows have handled a departure in better ways (from the standpoint of what was produced at least), information about an actor wanting to leave may tell us something that contributed to the episode's failure, but not why it failed. And at least in my mind, the hows and whys are often more interesting from a critical perspective.

Now, the information, of course, would be more relevant in talking about how and why the identities of the final five Cylons shifted over the course of the series, but that seems to me less criticism and more a study of process.

Even authorial intent is suspect because authors can be as blind as anyone to what they intended. They can't even be sure that what they intended made it across to the reader (unless they're very, very good) or that what made it across to the reader was the thing they intended, you know?
Nor does it matter if it did. I should be able to watch a movie and draw my own damn conclusions, after all. If someone disagrees with that criticism solely because the creators said they didn't intend to pass the messages I received, more power to them, but that strongly suggests that the work didn't work as intended and that the intent ought to be eclipsed by what's actually there.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

While it's interesting background for a discussion of the episode, it doesn't change something fundamental: the episode that aired failed

I don't mean that I pardon the episode entirely, more that my patience for it can be greater given that the story's creator was hamstringed by having to write around this obstacle. This is a block he/she did not anticipate in time, perhaps, to work around. I can forgive such things to a degree, if not absolutely.

Nor does it matter if it did. I should be able to watch a movie and draw my own damn conclusions, after all. If someone disagrees with that criticism solely because the creators said they didn't intend to pass the messages I received, more power to them, but that strongly suggests that the work didn't work as intended and that the intent ought to be eclipsed by what's actually there.

I don't think we disagree at all. I'm willing to hear out authorial intent, but that doesn't mean that they're "right," you know?

[jlc.livejournal.com]

It's not clear to me how you're using the term "non-diegetic" here. What it corresponds to in my mind is things outside the narrative (or the bits that build up the narrative) of a work, which to me are of course fair grounds for criticism. I mean, how can you not criticize style, diction, and the flow of a work? However in the comments, you seem to be talking more about relying on information external to the work. I read things that make arguments to external sources (even really interesting sources like authors' letters or the blog for a show) as part of their critical framework much more carefully and with far more suspicion than works that keep themselves focused on the text in and of itself. While I'm not a total fan of New Criticism, I find Wimsatt and Beardsley's "The Intentional Fallacy" a clear enough statement of the pitfalls that come from focusing on elements external to the work in and of itself. I find that while all this external information is fascinating it often obscures analysis of the work by replacing criticism with discussion of the context that created the work.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I'm a bit confused--you say "outside of the narrative" things are fair game, but information external to the work are less so, and are actually part of another kind of criticism. Could you give an example? I'm having a hard time telling which bits of information would be which.

[jlc.livejournal.com]

It's a very clear distinction in literature and hypermedia, but I'm not sure how distinct it is in film because I'm not terribly familiar with film criticism. Elements of literary style, like diction, aren't part of the narrative in my mind but are internal to the work and absolutely essential to criticism. Sometimes the line is less distinct, say in the organization of chapters or whatnot, but there's still a distinction between the actual narrative of the work--what happens--and how it's presented.

For a wilder example, consider ergodic texts or similar electronic literature (kinetic poems or interactive fiction), where the overall narrative may not change but the method of traversing that narrative or the particular form of the presentation might. With the way I understand it, the particular traversal or presentation is non-diegetic but nevertheless integral to the work.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Interesting! Is the work of understanding the text part of the critique? I never thought about that. Clearly, most texts don't make you have suffer quite as much to get through them, so it's harder to define what parts immediately outside their narratives "count" or not. Film is definitely more troublesome because there are so many people who create the ultimate work and whose priorities are going to be vastly different.

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

It depends on the kind of criticism that you're doing.

Works can and should stand on their own, but that doesn't mean you can't choose to include any other information you have--about the author, about the history, about the literary/cinematic history, about philosophy, about other criticism--to come to whatever conclusion you come to. I think it works better to take in as much information as possible and see the different angles you can take and then, as a good critic, figure out what's worth considering and what you should reject. That's my personal philosophy. However it's still, in my mind, perfectly valid to evaluate a work purely on what is exactly there on the screen. I think you'd just be missing something.

One bone I have to pick with you about criticism in general: criticism is NOT about authorial intent. (I'm not sure if you believe that, I've seen you say that before--particularly on the post about _Coming Soon_.) Individual works--books, TV shows, movies--make their own statements, and can demonstrate things thematically or as patterns/repetitions without the author's direct guiding hand influencing it. A lot of times those themes or patterns aren't intentional choices on behalf of the author, but more broadly reflect cultural or social ideas that have informed the work. Sometimes literary history can do the same thing, shaping a piece of work in a way that the author didn't INTENTIONALLY do, but that make it clearly a part of a certain history.

So yeah, I don't care about authorial intent. A movie or a book can do something, can show something, can thematically emphasize or reinforce something, without a creator's direct knowledge or even desire.

[jlc.livejournal.com]

I think you've said pretty much what I tried to say. I think including some contextual concerns (which may be biographical, historical, philosophical, or whatever) can be illuminating, but I think that part of being a good critic is avoiding, say, interviews with the author talking about what the author was trying to do/say/address in a given work. That sort of information strikes me as the subject of biography, not criticism.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Really? All authorial responses to work are too biographical to include in a criticism? I though biographical elements are okay?

(Not being obnoxious here, just curious. After all that bullshit over on the message boards, I feel I have to explain that.)

[jlc.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily too biographical, but rather that they're more interesting to a biographer, not a critic. The fact that the author said X, Y, or Z in an interview at some time should never close off avenues of criticism, nor should those statements by themselves ever drive criticism.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Ah, thank you. And again, I quite agree.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

On the issue of authorial intent:

I don't particularly disagree with you. Part of tries to understand what the author intended because that seems to be part of the process--parsing words/scenes for the meaning behind them. However, I think you're right that a lot of what the author puts into it can be subconscious, and that the reception of their work is often more authoritative than their statement of intent because of that subconscious contribution. They may think they've done one thing but to an informed reader, the impression is quite different. This is sort of the argument we had with Emily, I believe--the writers on BSG think they're doing something but the end result isn't what they intended. In such cases, I think "authorial intent" should be considered but also out-and-out judged when considering if the work was a success or failure.

Which is why I would include such outside information in a critique. Because interviews with authors are extraneous bits of information, but they can make you aware of efforts that might otherwise not puncture the fug of a bad overall product. The product may still be a failure, though.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, yes and no--I agree with most of what you're saying, but I still disagree on the one point about the author. You can (and in many cases *should*) consider authorial intent but I think that making the aim of criticism to find out what the author was trying to do and then decide if he/she succeeded is kind of missing the point. Ultimately it doesn't matter what the author was trying to do--what matters is what the work DOES do (or doesn't, interestingly enough).

To use the BSG example, the creators are clearly _trying_ to establish strong female characters. But I don't think that matters, because the show itself demonstrates a problematic, and occasionally reactionary view of women. I don't think what the authors intended really matters there, or is even that interesting. What's interesting is what the show itself is doing, and the ways in which those characterizations happen and what that says about a) the kind of culture that reflects and b) the kind of histories, both cultural and cinematic, that the show is a part of.

Does that make sense?

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

Er, that was me. :D

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, I follow. It works better with examples. I happen to find "what does the work say about the people making" lines of criticism particularly interesting--it's one I would have written papers on if I'd been in more literary/film criticism classes. Not just the people making it, I mean the society as a whole at the time and place the work was made. That is very interesting.

[droidguy1119.livejournal.com]

The only potential problem with factoring those things into an argument is that then theoretically you should always factor those things into any argument, and it has to include all the data.

I may know the story is that Joe Pantoliano and Robert Davi couldn't stand each other working on The Goonies, but someone else analyzing the movie may not. It's debatable whether it influenced the finished work, and Davi and Pantoliano may tell differing stories about it in the press (I read a recent Onion AV Club interview where Davi acted like everything was cool). So how do you quantify how important this information is in judging the movie?

Or what about this: Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett were signed onto a $70m version of The Fountain that fell apart because Brad Pitt and Darren Aronofsky had creative differences. This certainly affected the final version with Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz, as the latter had a smaller budget/scope and was shot later, but how much did the first version failing affect the final product? Are they two different projects? Can you even compare them? The same movie isn't even possible with $40m compared to $70m.

Some will say only one of these examples are relevant. Some will say neither. Some will say both. And that doesn't even cover the cultural significance of something encountering trouble during its release. Brazil was recut by the studio, and Terry Gilliam used a loophole allowing "clips" from a film to be shown to students for discussion to show the entire film, which was reviewed by the New York Film Critics association and forced Universal to release it. This has no effect on the finished film, but does it affect the interpretation? And of course, last year they discovered footage from the 1927 film Metropolis in a vault that was thought to be destroyed forever. Does the length of time it takes a piece of work to be seen completely factor in?

[droidguy1119.livejournal.com]

I forgot to mention, another question I was building towards with The Goonies example is whether or not stories of an on-set dispute are even true, and that you have to hear about it to be able to factor it in. There may have been an explosive fight on Movie X but if nobody ever talks about it, we will never know.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

This is a good question, but one that I think depends entirely on an unsatisfactory sort of guideline that I'm not necessarily in favor of but can't dismiss. The example of The Goonies is that of a rumor. But rumors aren't right out of consideration, are they? Can't we look at something like Mr. and Mrs. Smith and apply our knowledge that the leads were flirting to critique the strength of the actors' chemistry together? In that Goonies example, I'd say the overt hostility between the men playing hostile, competitive brothers might have helped the film sell their antics...if it were true. You'd need more than gossip or either of their word for it to make that argument though--set reports, specific stories or press clippings from other people to verify it, that sort of thing.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Well in the examples of The Fountain, Brazil, and Metropolis, I'd say, yes, this does matter. Limitations that create new things that wouldn't otherwise have existed or editing against the will of a creator or pieces of film being lost really do change the product enough that those events are worth talking about and the differences hashed out in criticism. I mean, we constantly refer to the limitations of, say, CGI in movies when critiquing the ability of story-tellers to use that medium to tell their story. Bad CGI ruins a good movie, although we are more lenient in our critiques if the technology to do better was not available. If it was available, knowing that money (perhaps in the case of The Fountain) or laziness or lack of access prevented someone from doing their best to tell their story is fair game for criticism. (Truly great creators find a way to tell their story by exploiting what they have available and using it in new ways.)

[saikogrrl.livejournal.com]

These people clearly don't have the education you have (or, say, ANY), and are morons. It's probably just an excuse of theirs to deny and ignore your arguments. Or they're so wrapped up/ obsessed with the show that they think it's liek totaly reel and only the story can bee considred?

>____< ;;

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I'm happy to go look a thing and go "Ooh, shiny" and forget critical analysis. But in a thread dedicated to critically analyzing something, you're really up shit creek without a paddle if you think, "Well I like it" is an argument.

I'm too used to arguing in school, you must be right.

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

I agree with saikogrrl. You're an informed critic, having taken classes in film and literary theory, and these people, most likely, are among the ever-increasing group who think that everyone's opinion, however ill-informed, carries equal weight. Screw 'em. It's not worth your time. You have friends who don't suck who you can talk about the show with.

I hate "Web 2.0". (I'm on LJ only to more easily communicate with RL friends.) I hate MMOs. I don't want to interact with the unwashed masses any more than I have to. And I think message boards are the worst of all. Believe me, you can't even go on message boards about computer programming without them being overrun by self-important assholes. The number of times I have Googled how to do something with a programming language, only to find a message board with the question posted, "How do I do X?" and the first reply being, "Why do you want to do X?"... Dozens, at least; maybe over a hundred. Even when people know that this happens and post, "Look, I know this isn't the best way to do this, but for a complex variety of reasons we have to do it this way..." they still get, "Why can't you do it this other way?"

I'm sure it's another shade of the same phenomenon. Let me amend my earlier assertion that these people think everyone's opinion carries equal weight. They more likely are are tremendously self-centered and think that their ideas and opinions are the best around (even if they don't think so in so many words, though it sounds like this Jacob guy might), and just can't be bothered to listen to anyone else (even when they're ostensibly there to help). It's not worth your time (even if it is work downtime) or effort.

</CrotchetyOldMan>

...That, or this guy is Jacob from the island, in which case he's still a dick, but you'd better listen anyway or everyone will die.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I agree with [info]saikogrrl. You're an informed critic, having taken classes in film and literary theory, and these people, most likely, are among the ever-increasing group who think that everyone's opinion, however ill-informed, carries equal weight. Screw 'em. It's not worth your time. You have friends who don't suck who you can talk about the show with.

I've said elsewhere that I think this guy thinks he's a metaphysical poet with his goddamned reviews. I don't hate poetry, but I like grounding in reality on occasion, too. And you're right--I have actual friends who are way less aggravating and more awesome to talk about this with. (Your wife and I had a grand bitch session last weekend!)

Believe me, you can't even go on message boards about computer programming without them being overrun by self-important assholes.

Part of me wants to believe there was a time where boards weren't this bad because I've been on some before without this much rage. However, I'm happy to avoid them forever more because I am also sure that you're totally right about their asshole-to-usefulness ratio.

..That, or this guy is Jacob from the island, in which case he's still a dick, but you'd better listen anyway or everyone will die.

The second he proves that to be the case, I will totally retract my arguments against him. Failing that, stabbity stab!

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

I hate "Web 2.0".

(I'm so glad I'm not the only one who's completely skeptical of the value there... I mean OMGZ0RZ IT'S REVOLUTIONIZING THE INTARWEBS)

[jlc.livejournal.com]

Oh, and from reading the thread more, I think there's a fundamental difference between what you're trying to do and what the rest of the posters are trying to do. You're talking about BSG as a cultural artifact, that is, something with particular ties to place and the rest of them seem to live in a strange world where the work is judged in a bizarre critical vacuum, where the facts of the world and how we experience fiction don't matter.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

That might be the best summation of events I've read yet.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

In other words, their comments/opinions are fan-wank.

[jlc.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm spoiled by the fans I interact with regularly, but I think most of the fannish output I see is more aware of the work in a larger context than this.

[cbreakr.livejournal.com]

Of course you should! Just like you said, these stories don't exist in a vacuum. There's nothing in the world in any field that isn't fair game for discussion. Limits only stunt learning.

But you're also dealing with people who are personally attached to the subject matter. They're "purists" not by principle or philosophy, but by emotion. They only want criticism their way because they only want so much criticism and this is a convenient way to draw the line and feel better. If only this phenomenon were isolated only to message boards...

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

It does feel like that some times. I don't know. Increasingly, the more I argue with people off of my friendslist, the less frequently I find people agree with me. I'm beginning to think I've self-selected for answers I want to hear as much as the people on these boards have. We're all guilty, I suppose.

[cbreakr.livejournal.com]

We all have our comfort zones that we live within that even we're unconscious to. Your awareness of that and the fact that your arguments are about breaking such barriers probably means it's not at the heart of all this.

As you mentioned in your other post, some of your troubles probably have to do with your style of argument. If you come off too strong, too quickly then you'll illicit a defensive reaction, which is exactly what this sounds like. It then becomes an arms race - your natural tendency to be aggressive keeps escalating defensive reactions, keeping you pouncing and warping arguments along the way. Eventually the points being made aren't really important anymore. I've made some really crazy points from either side of this sort of argument, stuff I would never have made such a big deal of or focused on otherwise.

Even if your point is valid, the presentation or the audience itself might not be suited to it. Maybe it's time to soften your approach, or maybe the message boards aren't the best place to be making this point. Either way, back off a little bit there, Starbuck. Give people some space, even if it's space they use to be wrong in.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I'll behave. Promise.