Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8932758" data-attributes="member: 7023840">This is just a bizarre misunderstanding of what is in the OP. It's actually all spelled out. For real. Here, watch!When any media has a well-developed body of work, and of serious study and criticism, certain terms and definitions become codified so that people can more easily discuss them. Many of these are so well known that you don't have to be especially "in the know" to understand them, or have read back issues of Cahiers du Cinéma or dived into S/Z in order to participate in the conversation. If I'm talking about a "montage" or a "jump cut" or "diegetic and non-diegetic sound" when I'm discussing a movie, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You understand the technique, and from that point, you can immediately begin the conversation about whether the technique was accomplished in a manner that effectuates the overall purpose of the author and is intelligible as such to the audience. It's the same with literature; whether it's as simple as a metaphor or an allusion, or more complicated like low and high mimetic, there are general terms that have been agreed upon.This agreement on basic terms is key to any type of useful criticism. You have to be able to discuss the basic building blocks - the structure - of a work before you can even begin to understand if it is accomplishing its goals well.Criticism has a purpose- more often than not, is a work "successful." But before you begin to discuss that, you have to agree on the basic terms you are using.That's the issue I was discussing- there is a tendency in RPGs to use terms that are already loaded, so instead of getting to discuss (and debate) critiques, you end up arguing over the basic terms, because the terms people have used are already loaded.</blockquote>

Verification