We Should Be More Critical of Our Criticisms

Engineers are taught to be precise, it comes off as being brusk, though it really isn't. It's like people don't like my game for it's data driven feel, others engineers have complimented the same. A retired rocket scientist asked me to write his autobiography, I replied I know nothing about that, and he said "you have written four books!" It's not wrong, just some are going to self-select for Mork Borg, and others for the xyz coordinates list.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

How did that limit even come about? Like, I heard somewhere that it somehow goes back to alphanumeric pager technology, which seems ridiculous to me. That's like having a limitation that's a holdover from carrier pigeons or the pony express

How did the 280 character limit that @payn mentioned come about?

Because it was more than 140 characters.
 

With respect, I find a major difference between "justify" and "explain".

"Justification," includes a defense against judgement - justification is making it so nobody can say, "You should not have that preference." It is, by its nature, defensive.

The OP calls for us to explain why a thing is without getting into whether that is the right way to be.
But the dictionary does not, unless you're inferring a lot more nuance into the distinction.

1752254490090.png


That's pretty much the same thing as explain. In this context they are synonyms.
 

Breaking my own rules, but here goes...


I'm responding negatively to the idea that critics know better than everyone else and should be listened to or deferred to. There's no value in that.

I'm not responding negatively to the notion of peers having a conversation or discussion about art. There is value in that.
Okay, that's not what you seemed to say with your words, but makes sense. Fair enough though.

I'm not sure I entirely agree re: only listening to "peers" though - critics sometimes really have interesting or informed opinions, and sometimes really dumb or weirdly unqualified-seeming ones, but it depends on the critic and what they're criticising. I tend to strongly disagree with Pauline Kael's opinions, for example, but I read a book of her film criticism pieces long ago and a couple of them were truly enlightening, and several others, whilst I disagreed with the conclusions, I felt were really interesting insights into a certain culture in the 1970s and 1980s (and also helped illuminate our own times and culture by showing how we've just come to passively accept certain things, or the "Overton Window" has moved). I'd say, in general, critics often have a more interesting opinion than totally random peers, but I will add that every year that becomes less true, as more and more critics simply are random jerks with no special insight or education, and given that YouTube and TikTok "critics" seem to succeed more by surfing opinion waves than genuinely having opinions, and increasing numbers of newspaper/magazine critics seem to be just plain dunces (I'm looking at you, The Guardian). So it's like, I guess, you're becoming more right there!
 

comic book Magic the Gathering shop.
I would argue that Comics, as terrible a state as they are in, are still in better shape currently than Magic is. Don't get me wrong! We made a ton of money off of the Final Fantasy Magic Set (you know, for the five minutes we had it in stock). But these gimmicks don't last, and as gimmicky as comics are and can be, there's still a few publishers just putting out good things to read. I'm not sure Magic is doing sets that aren't steeped in gimmicks. Magic is akin to Marvel - but there IS no alternative, relatively-speaking.
 

I have to say, I pray that US Taco Bell is better than UK Taco Bell (which appeared here relatively recently), because my god, I've never come across even fast food that so consistently tasted like and had the texture of plastic and/or cardboard! I wish I was kidding! I've had proper Mexican a lot in the US and loved it so I suspect it's like how US pizza chains are relatively better in the US than the UK in most cases, because they have to compete with local restaurants in the UK.
What's "proper" Mexican food is a matter of debate here in the United States though I think there's universal agreement that Taco Bell isn't it. Like most fast food places, you go to Taco Bell because it's convenient and tastes good enough. I don't know about the UK, but here in the US Taco Bell is often the butt of jokes all revolving around the quality of their food. Like Liberace, I imagine Taco Bell cries all the way to the bank.

And if I can't be king of y'all, then guess what? I'm going to make sure that I have SO MANY WORDS that all of the AI Overlords will, in effect, be achieving a full Snarf-consciousness when they inhale my verbiage.
I'm pretty sure it'll be like those old episodes of Star Trek where the computer just shuts down.
 

Definitely this.

One thing that I think can be quite interesting in this topic is revisiting the same thing at different ages, decades apart, and seeing how differently or similarly you react to all or part of it. Can really reveal what mattered to you about something, or where you were being driven by perhaps non-rational feelings about stuff.

I'm currently re-watching Buffy The Vampire Slayer, and seeing a lot of this. Some characters I found intensely dislikeable or distressing as a teenager are much more understandable as an aging adult, but others it becomes obvious that no, that is actually bad behaviour, even looking at it from a 40-something perspective. I always wondered if I was being too hard on Buffy's mom about some stuff as a kid, but as an adult I can see she's a real "helicopter parent" (something I didn't even have a term for back then) in both senses of the term and a bit more self-indulgent and "standard procedure"-focused than most parents I knew growing up (and particularly more than ones I know today, who are my age!), even after all is revealed.

It's also interesting to see how certain things which seemed fine then did not age well, but other things did, or even were ahead of their time.

And I think one of the reasons that emerges for why the show is so likeable to me is that it is really pretty relatable in a lot of ways, especially there's something about Buffy herself and the constant frustrations and often surprisingly uncontrived misunderstandings or half-understandings she deals with that makes her relatable. The writing, whilst very 1990s, also holds up surprisingly well. Comparing it to TV series today directly, it's clear writing hasn't really improved since that era, in fact, it's relatively rare to see shows which are as well-written as Buffy often is (and that might seem like a low bar but there we are).

In fact looping back on "uncontrived", I am genuinely a little surprised because I remembered the show as being more contrived than this - there is some contrivance, and you can see a lot of places where if Buffy and friends had mobile phones (as I did at that time, current on S3), things would have been simple, but that wasn't a contrivance in the US back then - relatively few people did have them, and surprisingly major places in the US had poor or no cellphone coverage - perhaps something I didn't realize at the time (generally it seems like the US was like, 3-4 years behind much of Western Europe here, and we were behind Scandinavia, Japan and South Korea).


Yup. It's important to realize that sometimes you like things that aren't very good and not to be too defensive about it. Sometimes a specific criticism may be dead wrong, and that's fair to push back against but everything has flaws. Except Deep Space 9. Obviously. < pushes Profit and Lace under the carpet with a broom >

I like criticising things I enjoy (call me perverse but...), and am not a true "fan" of much (maybe just Mass Effect and Star Trek), so I think it's bit easier for me than some people, who reach "fan" levels of adoration more easily (nothing wrong with that, note, I wish I could sometimes). Sometimes the flaws make something better too in certain ways. Sometimes they really don't though!
My wife and I are rewatching Buffy and Angel (much of it is brand new for her, actually), and I definitely found myself with some more understanding of and to a degree sympathy for the adult characters than I used to have. Of course,, the last time I did a full rewatch I didn't have a wife and children. They're both still great shows.

So is DS9, btw. Still my favorite Trek.
 

A few years ago, DC did a event comic series called Heroes in Crisis. It was focused around mental health, PTSD and related subjects for super heroes, and it seemed like it would be right up my alley. But in the process of telling the story, it did unspeakable things to Wally West, the Flash. I was so angry that I refused to ever read another DC comic.

Why was I so mad? On a most basic level, it felt deeply out of character for Wally, and so it was insulting from a writing level. But more, Wally West was MY Flash and also the character that brought me into reading comics. (Despite being a sci-fi, cartoon and D&D geek as a kid, I did not really read comics until when I was 14, the Flash TV show was on. I happened across Flash #50 at my local newstand -- remember those? -- and was hooked from there.) Because shortly thereafter Mark Waid took over and wrote it for 200 issues or so, and I followed it, I "grew up" with Wally. I got married and so did he. I had kids, and so did he. Wally did not just define my relationship with comic books and superheroes, those stories helped me find my own moral perspective.

So, when that story turned Wally into a murderer and destroyed his character, I took it personally. I don't think it would have been possible for me to judge the story on its own merits, or even see the positive elements within the event (talking about mental health).

Anyway, that's kind of what I mean about self reflection on how one feels about things -- seeking and articulating the why.

ASIDE: they did eventual retcon the event to "fix" Wally, and I read those issues, but I have never really forgiven DC.
I feel this one. This was me and the Capt America has turned Hydra arc at Marvel, and it was just an ick storyline. Yes, I knew it would be undone. It was largely irrelevant, I was not enjoying the arc because thematically it undercut the core of the character and sadly, the writer was also being very much “that guy” on social media (a whole other factor). Comics for me are difficult because you are simultaneously expected to care about the characters and yet wade through some of the most eye rolling and sometimes intellectually insulting stories without criticism.
 

I would argue that Comics, as terrible a state as they are in, are still in better shape currently than Magic is. Don't get me wrong! We made a ton of money off of the Final Fantasy Magic Set (you know, for the five minutes we had it in stock). But these gimmicks don't last, and as gimmicky as comics are and can be, there's still a few publishers just putting out good things to read. I'm not sure Magic is doing sets that aren't steeped in gimmicks. Magic is akin to Marvel - but there IS no alternative, relatively-speaking.
I haven't played MtG in a while now, but yeah, watching Spongebob Squarepants and Bilbo Baggins fight Cloud Strife and The Doctor completely ruined any remaining love I had for the game. It's really a shame they're the 800lb gorilla of the TCG space, there's other card games doing much more interesting and cohesive things.
 

I haven't played MtG in a while now, but yeah, watching Spongebob Squarepants and Bilbo Baggins fight Cloud Strife and The Doctor completely ruined any remaining love I had for the game. It's really a shame they're the 800lb gorilla of the TCG space, there's other card games doing much more interesting and cohesive things.
Is the market leader ever the one doing the best work?
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top