Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8451604" data-attributes="member: 6785785">But why? If I'm going to critique something....let's say a TV Show like The Sopranos.....I should use the language that suits what I'm trying to say. If I want to say that at times, the pace of the show is glacial, that likely (intentionally!) has negative connotations. It's something I am saying I don't like about the show.Why shouldn't I be able to use the terms I think are relevant?If someone disagrees with me, then they can explain why. &quot;The sometimes slow pace of the show is to give us insights into characters that may not seem relevant at the time, but which will pay off later on&quot; or something similar. It may not change my mind about my criticism, but hey, maybe it will. Doesn't change the fact that there's more than one opinion on the matter.Sure, but is anyone really striving for normative critique in these discussions? I'd say the majority of what's discussed is undoubtedly subjective.I think the use of jargon is where this idea may come up; people are always trying to come up with one clear definition for a word or phrase. But that's not always possible. Either people are too married to their idea about the word/phrase, and not willing to all get on the same page, or there are simply too many ways to interpret the word/phrase. This is going to happen. When it does, I think it's best to provide an explanation on the use of the word, and make that clear. &quot;When I say mosaic, what I mean is X&quot; or something like that. Then, the other party has to accept that's the definition. They don't have to accept it forever and in all ways, but they have to accept it within the context of that specific use and that specific discussion.What we often see is an unwillingness to accept, even temporarily, someone else's definition for a phrase, and so instead of discussion about the ideas behind the words, the idea becomes about the words themselves.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8451604, member: 6785785"] But why? If I'm going to critique something....let's say a TV Show like The Sopranos.....I should use the language that suits what I'm trying to say. If I want to say that at times, the pace of the show is glacial, that likely (intentionally!) has negative connotations. It's something I am saying I don't like about the show. Why shouldn't I be able to use the terms I think are relevant? If someone disagrees with me, then they can explain why. "The sometimes slow pace of the show is to give us insights into characters that may not seem relevant at the time, but which will pay off later on" or something similar. It may not change my mind about my criticism, but hey, maybe it will. Doesn't change the fact that there's more than one opinion on the matter. Sure, but is anyone really striving for normative critique in these discussions? I'd say the majority of what's discussed is undoubtedly subjective. I think the use of jargon is where this idea may come up; people are always trying to come up with one clear definition for a word or phrase. But that's not always possible. Either people are too married to their idea about the word/phrase, and not willing to all get on the same page, or there are simply too many ways to interpret the word/phrase. This is going to happen. When it does, I think it's best to provide an explanation on the use of the word, and make that clear. "When I say mosaic, what I mean is X" or something like that. Then, the other party has to accept that's the definition. They don't have to accept it forever and in all ways, but they have to accept it within the context of that specific use and that specific discussion. What we often see is an unwillingness to accept, even temporarily, someone else's definition for a phrase, and so instead of discussion about the ideas behind the words, the idea becomes about the words themselves. [/QUOTE]

Verification