Elirra wrote:Ok, your criticisms are mostly wrong. Additionally they're shallow attempts to tear down someone you're jealous of in the most illogical way imaginable, you view his work every time he has some, you register on his website, and then you speak to his fans about what you think about him as a person.
Come on, don't kid yourself! You really
think I'm jealous of Randall, or you just said that because you were upset? Because if I had to be jealous of someone, I'd choose George Carlin, or José Saramago. But Randall
? Come on.
whateveries wrote:re: absurd humour, like any kind of humour,is a kind communication between two or more people, look at it like a kind of code, if you have the key you get the message, if you only have part of the key, or none, you miss out. I suspect you lost your key. other people might try to lend you theirs, but, for some reason it just doesn't work that way.
I get what you're saying. But what about those works for which there is no key at all? This may be intentional from the artist, but this may as well be because the artist is just full of shit; and all the "keys" that people made up are completely delusional, like spotting faces on the surface of Mars. That's the trouble with the absurd: if there is no context or no clear purpose, it may indeed end up as "random shit", in the bad sense.
jpk wrote:I have to say, it wouldn't be the first time that's happened. Would you like to enlighten me, so that I may be less wrong in the future? What is criticism, in your view? In my beknighted ignorance, all I've seen from your postings has been a reflexive contradictory stance. Whatever is done, is wrong, generally suupported by little more than your say-so. I suppose I'm missing the true underlying brilliance. Could you possibly deign to stoop to my level for a moment and share some of the secrets, so that I too might sip from the cup of knowledge that you share so freely?
... oh, well.
There is no law saying that criticism should "say something new". After all, what is new for one person may be old for another. What I consider as good criticism is that which is honest
, and whose opinions are somehow justified -- both the positive and the negative ones. Honesty is not a problem for me, but I confess I don't always justify myself. I usually try. "Telling instead of showing" is a pretty strong justification. It is old news, but is that reason why it shouldn't be said?
Alex-J wrote:The point is not to offend no one, but to present your content in a manner that does not unduly offend and will not immediately alienate the people who might have otherwise agreed with you.
I have tried that, but the results were virtually identical. It's sad, but some people here reject the very idea of criticism
. Evidently some people don't, and with those people (such as yourself) it's worthwhile to maintain a polite conversation.
Alex-J wrote:You are not doing something similar to Roger Ebert.
Yes, I know, I never tried to imply that. But the point is that a critic like Ebert knows when
to be shocking and offensive -- in other words, he does it with style. He gained his reputation and respect through the power and coherence of his opinions, not by being a nice guy. But I see you're talking about something else entirely, so don't mind me, I'm digressing.
Alex-J wrote:You are informing someone of why they wouldn't want to read a free web-comic they just viewed on the forum of that web-comic. Ebert writes for what an audience wants and utilizes a style they enjoy. You write for yourself and utilize a style you enjoy, not one that will best articulate or convince your audience of your point.
You criticisms do not appear occasionally, but regularly. You are not trying to merely improve something, you want to remake it entirely. If something is running successfully it probably won't want to get rid of what its fan-base enjoys. You are trying to tell "it" that it is icky and yucky and gross and should not do almost everything that it is doing, with a particular style that will probably not be successful.
Well, I don't know if it will be successful or not, but I am
sharing a piece of my mind. Some time ago I honestly
hoped that Randall could give a try at having an editor, or a beta reader. Now I think that's highly unlikely, but what I really want is that criticism here is seen as something valid and inevitable, not a cancer to be removed and burnt at the stake. Criticism, when it's done well, can only have positive effects; maybe my criticism is too shocking and offensive to do that, but if people get used to my
criticism, then they'll be able to handle the more generous ones, and stop rejecting the very idea of criticism
, like I said above.
J Thomas wrote:Horses for courses. When you want to present feelings, you can present the sort of cues they would use to infer feelings from real life. If you do it well, they will experience the feelings more intensely. But when you are presenting arguments, this does not work well at all. People who do not already understand your positions are likely to still not understand even after you have vividly presented your feelings. And people who disagree will definitely still disagree.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you made a mix up. I was explaining that the "show, don't tell" rule is not strictly visual, and it applies to writing, radio presentations and so on. I don't know why you're talking about "arguments", and maybe I
am mixing up things.
J Thomas wrote:You say that everybody should already agree that this is all IMHO stuff, so you shouldn't have to tell them that. But often your style gives the impression that you think your opinions are better than other people's opinions, that you think you're right and they're wrong. A disclaimer could make a big difference.
Well, that's worth a try. If you turn out to be right, I'll give you credit.
J Thomas wrote:I think you have the basic instinct for humor, but you need to hone the skill.
Ah, yes, I definitely need to sharpen my skills if I want to get real with it. But still, thanks!