I don't know how many of my fellow bloggers or film critics will read this, or have experienced this, but I'm gonna post about it anyway. Whenever I get hate mail, like the one that will be published this Tuesday's NI, the writer always says some variation of the following: "I hate this critic, I never agree with anything he says."
If someone's criteria of what makes a good critic is that the critic agrees with them the vast majority of the time, then that's fine. But the way these people always write it, they're saying that what makes a critic inherently bad is that he or she doesn't like what they (the hate mailer) likes. Proof that the education system in America is a near-total disaster, I'm amazed at how many people can't fathom that there may be good writers of all kinds out there that don't agree with them on almost anything. Not that the person they like despite themselves has to be me, but the message they send is usually quite clear. Oh well.
I make it a point to write every one of them back, and once in a while a decent dialogue will get going, but usually their either ignore me or just insult me even worse on the reply. Just no pleasing some, I reckon. Scott Cawelti usually advises me to simply ignore it, and he gets the kind of hate mail where the words are spelled with cut out magazine fragments. But admittedly, even if the letters come from complete morons or nutcase math freaks, it still stings a little to be told you blow at something you like to do.
In other news, I'm terribly ill for the second time this week. Hopefully the review that I had to write today of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford won't be a total disaster as a result.
14 comments:
To quote Philip Baker Hall in Secret Honor, "Fuck 'em!"
Maybe it's just that I'm relatively low-profile in the grand scheme of things, but I don't think I've ever gotten any "hate mail." The stuff I've done is relatively low profile, especially in the case of my blog, so the people who visit generally are friends or well-wishers, rather than naysayers. And in the case of Screengrab it's much the same- they visit because they want to be there. We don't get the same traffic as the AV Club Blog, but we also don't get the trolls.
Sorry you're not feeling well. Looking forward to your thoughts on The Assassination of Jesse James, which I love so much that I've already seen it twice, before most people in the Central Ohio area have bothered to see it once.
Thanks Paul! Sites like Screengrab are really cool, especially since you don't get the trolls. When my tenure at this paper comes to an end, I'd like to search for one to write for, assuming I'm up to the task. Looking at your Listology page is dizzying; I've only found ONE movie that I've seen which you haven't! Ripley's Game, in case you were wondering.
I did like The Assasination of Jesse James, but was almost reluctant to write about it. I went away thinking that a second viewing would probably either make me like it a whole lot more, though not necessarily less. I think the score I awarded it in the paper was low by a .5, which I can rectify when I post it on here.
No matter what you do, someone is going to hate you for no reason. You could invent a drug that cured both cancer and aids and helped you loose weight with no negative side effects and someone would claim that your cure is an affront to the lord. Others might insist in all honesty that they have proof that your cure was given to you by aliens who want to enslave the human race.
Don't let yourself be even the slightest bit offended. Cawelti's advice is sound, but I think it is also true that every so often one of your detractors may actually have a well-founded reason for disagreement. Which is, I imagine, why you make a point to write everyone back. But if they are being insulting, or just contradicting rather than actually arguing, chances are they are just using you as a punching bag for some other frustration they have, perhaps at having a small penis or whatever.
So if it were me, I would ignore the maliciously arrogant people and only address those who took the time and energy to properly format their anger in as a simple, emotionless counter-argument.
Hey Ramin. You're pretty much right; there will always be haters. I'm not even saying that I think no one should hate my stuff, but I don't think it would just kill them to write me something bordeline coherent about it.
The thing about writing is that you have to stick your neck out there. I've never received any hate mail from people that I've ever heard of, so if a guy in the history department sends me an email calling me a talentless moron, other than addressing what they say point by point, what is my response supposed to be? That he writes lousy history papers?
One guy wrote me directly on Friday about my The Darjeeling Limtied review, which I still haven't posted here yet, and made a somewhat valid point about how I neglected to mention two of Wes Anderson's films. I'll try to remedy that when I do get around to posting it on here, but other than that, I don't think I've ever gotten any negative feedback that pointed out anything useful.
I always hoped that people would email me to discuss these movies, but that almost never happens.
James, the thing you have to remember is that people in this usually agree in silence but disagree very loudly. It's one of the most messed up things about people and how they feel about their "rights." Like every little bump on a public road is a personal affront to them.
While I applaud your attempts at a civilized dialogue with your detractors, I can't help but see the futility in it. If someone disagrees then they're usually going to disagree until you change your mind or hold a gun to their heads (sometimes not even then).
Try to remember the few pieces of good feedback you've gotten. I remember you said one guy yelled at you one time "Good call James, that movie sucked." That right there is a hell of an endorsement.
Anyway, keep up the good work. I'm looking forward to your Assassination of Jesse James review.
As far as your commentary about writers go, quality will only ever be recognized by other writers, I would lay a wager that %75 of America would be unable to do 500 words a week on any subject, let alone a movie, that was legible.
Thanks Ryan! That was one hell of an endorsement, and the guy that said it was one of the few movie freaks around here.
An interesting development: today in Cawelti's Theory and Practice of Writing class, he read three reviews of Michael Clayton, no names on any of them. I recognized the first as Roger Ebert's review, of course. The second was mine. The third was James Berardinelli, the only major critic who I consider an inferior writer to me. He is fine and all, but reviews movies like a steamroller.
Anyway, he asked everyone about the reviews, and most of the class agree that Berardinelli had the best review of the three. Seriously, this was deranged, not just because he outranked mine, but because he outranked Ebert, who despite being insanely generous lately still writes some of the best stuff.
Then some cunt piped in and said that the second review (mine) was flawed because I mentioned that Tony Gilroy, the writer/director, had made "two good Bourne films and one bad one." Next thing you know, half the class is aghast at how that had no place in the review, with one genius observing that I "offend anyone who liked all of the Bourne movies." Seriously. We're talking about movie reviews, and she's complaining that I should be more concerned about the reader's thoughts on other movies. Because movie reviews aren't opinions or anything. And because if a reviewer doesn't like every single movie you do, then he or she is worthless. Right?
Well, that all put me in a fantastic mood. But it ties into what you said: quality writing is mostly only recognized by people capable of it themselves.
I don't think the issue here is that only writers can recognize good writing. I think it's more that our educational system has changed to the point where groupthink has become the norm even at the post-secondary level. Like so much going on in our society today, college too often regresses to a high school level of discourse, where it's easier and more appealing to simply hop on the bandwagon with all the cool kids than to espouse a well-considered but controversial opinion.
But even worse than that is the base level of critical thinking displayed by your classmates. It's laughable to think a review has no merit unless we agree with the opinions found therein. By extension, I could say some teenager's text-message reading "wzup Domino r00lz" is an infinitely better review than the dozens if not hundreds of scathing reviews of Tony Scott's film written by insightful critics, simply because I'm a fan of the movie.
I guess the real question here is what Cawelti was trying to accomplish by including your review in the discussion. Also, what happened afterward? If I was in your place, I hope I would've had the stones to stand up, both hands proudly giving a one-finger salute, and proclaim, "that was my review, and you all get F's, fuckers!"
Paul:
Good point. I probably shouldn't say that quality writing is mostly recognized by good writers, although that trait certainly helps.
As for groupthink, I've actually been meaning to post about that on here for a while. It was absurd how quickly once that complaint about my review was uttered that the voice of half the class congealed to heap scorn on the whole thing. Something negative probably could have been said about Ebert's review and that would have set off something too, but they sure were smitten with the Berardinelli review, presumably because it is so hammer and nails that someone totally unfamiliar with how reviews work can understand it. I've found the same dicketry at work during all of the fiction workships I've participated in, which makes the whole exercise completely worthless.
The level of critical thinking on their part was, well, nonexistent. I suppose that there were probably a couple of people in there who disagreed with the group as a whole, but that doesn't mean I have to be amused by the childish antics of the rest. While I know that a bunch of people who would choose the Berardinelli review over the Ebert one clearly disqualify themselves from any authority on the topic, it still sucks to sit there and take it.
Cawelti's exercise was a demonstration of the "contextual theory" of writing, ie writing done in field that have conventions and certain rules to follow. We've look at law writing and other things like that as part of the unit. After class, Cawelti told me he was surprised at how the class seemed to throw its weight behind the worst review, while harping on some asinine part of mine.
I didn't pipe up at the time, but I certainly was tempted to. I pretty much spent half the day afterwards thinking of rebuts and insulting things to say, but I don't know if I'll say any of them. I'm not even sure if I'll be identified as the writer of the second review, which offended the good sensibilites of all of the smart kids, but I am supposed to talk about movie reviewing in some capacity (which will net me my graduate credit). Frankly, though, now don't really wanna say anything to these goddamn retards. If they want to use your hilarious "Domino" example as the proper way to judge a critic, then fine, but I don't wrote for people like that, and if there is a God, I never will.
I got to talk to the class today about movie reviewing and I was received like a Grand Wizard at an NAACP conference. A genuine nightmare, and the polar opposite of the last class I spoke to, which was receptive and friendly. At least I can sleep soundly knowing that the UNI English department has met its quota for giant douchebags and snooty cunts this semester.
Question- what sort of students take this class? Is it a general course, or is it specifically meant for English majors? Based on what you've said so far, I'd guess the latter.
In my (limited) experience, the hardest people to teach are the ones who believe they know everything there is to know on a subject. Not only are they unreceptive to new knowledge, but they're scornful or even hostile to anyone who would try to tell them something different from what they know.
My advice- stop taking it so personally. And if that's not possible, don't bother addressing the class in the future. If they think you're wasting their time, then you're probably wasting yours.
The class consists primarily of English and English Teaching majors, or people with things closely relating to that (TESOL).
I addressed a class before in some capacity, but that was an Intro to Film class, and a very good audience. Here, I the class consisted primarily of people further along in their college education, and with pretty much no film enthusiasts.
There was an upside to this mess; I got my graduate credit done. Alternatively, I would have had to do a formal presentation or some big paper. But believe me when I say that I won't be saying anything else for the duration of the semester.
I've been thinking about the whole hate mail/critic's critcs sort of thing, and I have concluded that I need to learn to brush this stuff off more easily. But as of now, any negative letters I get are infrequent enough that I can personally respond to them all, which some advise me to do, others advise me against. That said, it's one thing to get nasty letters, another to sit in a room with the spotlight on you and a hostile audience. But that won't be happening again anytime soon.
Hope my Jesse James review is decent. I got a compliment on it the other day, which was nice.
The third was James Berardinelli, the only major critic who I consider an inferior writer to me.
James Berardinelli is an inferior writer to everybody. His fame, methinks, is merely a combination of right-place-right-time and continued, puzzling support from Ebert.
And the only critic I currently hate, off the top of my head, is Kyle Smith of the Post. Not because he's wrong most of the time or because he automatically hates any film that leans even slightly left, but because he's a godawful writer. His prose reads like his wildest dream is to morph into Rex Reed, but, y'know, without the gayness.
Not because he's wrong most of the time or because he automatically hates any film that leans even slightly left
Also, just to clarify, those are two separate concepts. The one piece of hate mail I got was from a liberal documentarian whose film I had disliked, so it's not like I'm praising films for mere good intentions.
James Berardinelli is an inferior writer to everybody.
Ha! I've seen him make valid points but I don't know if he has ever written anything interesting.
I've noticed the same trend about Kyle Smith, although it's often hard to like Rex Reed, too. When he's wrong, it's like a nuclear explosion of idiocy.
Post a Comment