dassdrow wrote:if posting content represents a person jumping in the lake then you're comments = you jumping in the lake also as you're comments are another form of content.
Yes, exactly. I never denied that.
dassdrow wrote:you're analogy if it is to be accurate, then requires everyone to jump in the lake because they have seen a lake with at least one person in it.
What? No, definitely not! I am "jumping into the lake" (i.e. criticising) because I chose to, but people may choose not to jump and it's their right. People who don't jump won't get wet (well, in practice I could criticise people who are saying nothing, but that would be silly), people who choose to jump will. I reckon that, and I have no problem in getting myself wet; but jumping in and complaining about the wetness is a silly attitude.
I honestly don't understand why you say "everyone should jump because they saw someone else do it". This is just not true.
dassdrow wrote:people = content they have published, water level = the amount related content, wetness= amount of bad critisim, coldness= bad reaction to bad critisism
there fore you're analogy should be " If you step in a lake, other people might to join you and the water will rise and you should expect to get more wet. however you may not expect someone will splash you as this might make you too cold and you may wish get dried off.
In other words, you're having the attitude of the artist complaining "criticism is too bad and I wish it wouldn't happen like that, so that I could post whatever I want without anyone complaining". No. Life is not like that. Criticism happens, and trying to do anything against it is futile. You may think it's sad, but it's still true.
jpk wrote:Ah. Evidence of good taste. O senhor gosta dos livros de Saramago? Muito bem.
Obrigado. Ele sim, eu considero um escritor digno de inveja.
jpk wrote:I suppose I'm not talking about laws, but usage. The intent of the critic, as a writer, is typically to say something. Why bother to simply say what has already been said in the original work, and to attach a value judgement to it? I can't think of anyone worth reading who takes that approach.
Okay, that's fair enough. Not much I can do about that other than disagree, but you have a strong point.
jpk wrote:Honesty is an excellent policy, in my view, but it does not substitute for insight. If you honestly dislike a work and can't see clearly why, or explain why, there's no point in saying anything about it.
Hopefully I haven't done that here. I don't like saying things in which I don't have any conviction. I have seen it the other way around, though: many threads have a post or two saying "I don't know why, but I laughed!". Hell, that's not taste, that's desperation.
jpk wrote:As many have noticed, there's nothing very interesting in anything you have to say on the subject. "Bah, that sucked" is a Beavis and Butthead joke, not a critical judgement, and that's about the extent of your commentary on any given comic.
Okay, I do that, I confess. But this only started to happen after I saw even my most "insightful" posts get kneejerk replies of the "if you don't like it, don't read it then!" and the "if you know so much better, where is YOUR webcomic?" kind. So I figure it's better to post something short and blunt, and elaborate when someone replies intelligently. This is happening right here.
jpk wrote:So much for insight. As for honesty, I don't believe that anyone could possibly hate a particular comic as consistenly as you claim to and still bother to read it as regularly as you do, so I think you're fronting.
Eh. I think I reached the point in which stopping to read xkcd is just as worthwhile as continuing. Loading up the page and reading the comic takes such a negligible portion of time and effort that I think it takes more effort to decide "no, I won't read it today". And besides, reading xkcd is completely different and unlike anything else I do with my time. For better or worse, it's a bit of variety.
jpk wrote:But the problem with this theory is that there's nothing shocking about your criticism. It's pedestrian, contrarian, and predictable. About as shocking, interesting, or palatable as a bowl of cold oatmeal.
Well, you do have some higher standards. But back when I was a raving fan, I used to think that the very possibility that anyone could think "xkcd sucks" was very shocking. And when I found a blog that was dedicated to that, I was, well, shocked. And I still see many fans repeating this kind of attitude. In other words, I have solid reason to think that my posts are shocking for a fair amount of people.
If I got more intelligent and elaborate responses more often, I'd be hard pressed to flesh out my thoughts further. And I enjoy being hard pressed. Replying to this post was very humbling. I hope I don't sound disdainful or sarcastic saying this.