posted
I haven't seen Prince of Persia. Not sure if I'm going to. But I did happen to read two reviews for the movie, one from Orson Scott Card himself and the other by the movie critic for IGMS. Wow. Talk about complete opposites. This made me think about the role of personal taste in storytelling. Maybe not so much personal taste. More like individual perception. We each see something different when looking at the same thing. Ever read the user reviews for books on amazon.com? You won't find many that everyone likes. One person will praise a novel for its strong characterization, while others dismiss it as utter drivel. When I see someone like Card, with his experience and understanding of storytelling, give a glowing review, then see another critic trash the material, it never fails to make me scratch my head. Oh, I get the whole chocolate vs. vanilla thing. I just don't get how two people can be so far apart as to -on one hand- absolutely love it, and -on the other- think it the worst piece of garbage they've ever seen. This seems to go beyond personal taste. Most of us will admit that a story is well-written even though it's "not our thing". I think there needs to be some real thought put into the psychology behind criticism - why we see what we see and why we have such extreme differences about the same things. Or maybe I should just go to bed and forget about it.
Posts: 456 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
The real trick for using a critic is to find one who's taste matches yours.
I seldom agreed with Ciscal and Ebert, but they told me what I needed to know about a movie to know whether I would like it.
The main thing for a critic to do is to let you be able to know whether you will be wasting your money.
In general I found I tended to enjoy one and zero star movies much better than four and five star movies.
I have never used book critiques to choose or not choose a book. I also don't go with whether famous people liked the book. I had always used the blurb to figure out whether I liked the book.
There are a lot of ways to find out about a book. One way is to find someone, a critic, that agrees with you, to report on the work.
posted
I was thinking "Prince of Persia" is the kind of thing I might watch a few minutes of when I'm flipping through channels and there's nothing else commanding my attention. Near as I can gather from media reports, it's a movie based on a video game, and that's hardly calculated to intrigue me enough to put me in a movie theater. The last movie I saw was "Up," and the movie before that was "The Return of the King"---moviegoing is not a big art of my life. (I plan to see "Toy Story 3" because the Pixar movies of late have pleased me beyond measure.)
On critics...when I was young, a lot of what critics / reviewers said did influence me...the SF reviewers I read in the seventies, particuarly Spider Robinson in Galaxy, influenced my tastes and turned me on to a lot of good writers...but as time wore on, I formed my own opinions and did not see eye to eye with, well, nearly every review I've read lately---at least when they're reviewing something I've seen.
Also on critics, particularly the big-name movie variety...I've come to see them as so jaded from watching so many movies that they see little-to-no-good in a lot of movies that will do the job and please a lot of people out there---but not them.
posted
Good points. Personally, I find most reviews pretty much worthless. Sure, somtimes they point me to books or movies that I really like, but more often than not I find them on my own, and like or dislike them according to my own taste. I guess my point is this: since as writers we all have to deal with criticism sooner or later, I thought there needed to be a discussion on its effects on our works. Like I said, I can understand differences of opinion, but not the extremes I see being spewed forth these days. Like it or don't like it, fine. That's perfectly acceptable. But when two knowledgeable individuals see the same piece and have COMPLETELY different takes on it... I'm not sure if I'm getting my point across or not. Just thought it would be worth discussing. By the way, this has nothing to do with the critiques I have received here or anywhere else. For the most part I've agreed with them.
Posts: 456 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, a critic-reviewer has a different function than the criticism we provide 'round here---well, the criticism that some of us do. A critic-reviewer will say "This [whatever] sucks, and this is why," whereas what we (ideally should) do is "This sucks, and this is why, but you might have a shot at improving it by this and that and the other thing." (Ideally.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing you must understand, is that there is a whole lot of taste in books. that is why there is so many different types being published.
A reviewer who loves sword and sorcery, might have to , but not like reading a space opera and would pan it. while a reviewer who lives on robot stories might give the space opera a good review. I happen to know that my style of preferred reading, has nothing to do with any "classic" anybody has ever described as books to study. I have read a couple thousand science fiction books in my life, and have only read one that was recommended to read as a classic to study. The same for the old classics.
A style of book I love, will get a good review, even if a "classic" lover would pan it. that might be what happened in the example you mentioned.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
