Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2011 20:45:06 GMT -5
Being an English major here is my idea of criticism of writing in general.
Really it depends if they have thought out criticisms and address them in a serious manner. You come to me about my writing with a problem that is addressed in a semi-decent matter and at least showing SOME proof that you've read enough to know it is a legit error and not intentional for further development (you can't call a plothole if you haven't finished the story, for example).
On the other hand, just telling me my story sucks and then being all "angry nerd" about it...I dunno if i'd laugh and be honored or be mad since i've never been in such a situation (outside of internet trolls and jackasses on Facebook who want to start stuff), but I damn sure wouldn't take it as a serious piece of criticism. Even if you truly have a point, addressing it in a video while cursing and yelling at the top of your lungs, and trying to be satirical about it...funny and entertaining as that may be, is not a serious critique.
And Linkara is an entertainer first and critic second after all. You think he gives as much a damn about putting together a fully coherent, professional argument as he does entertaining his audience? He wouldn't be on TGWTG if he did, I promise you that. That goes for Spoony, the Critic, the AVGN, and so on too.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jan 17, 2011 21:02:43 GMT -5
I would absolutely defend my writing if I felt I had to, or had a right to.
If nothing else I appreciate spirited debate. Linkara doesn't just go around saying 'this comic's shit roffle,' he raises legitimate points in a funny way. I would gladly discuss with Linkara how I felt about something, were I a comic writer.
In fact when he eventually gets to Identity Crisis, my favourite book, I'm hoping I can discuss his points with him on Spoony's board.
|
|
Ian Austin
Don Corleone
All will be well
Posts: 1,516
|
Post by Ian Austin on Jan 18, 2011 8:12:35 GMT -5
The snag I'd find with that is two fold.
1) There needs to be a clear divide between fans, critics and writers. Each group comes at the material from a different way. Critics review it critically, fans tend to view it instinctively, and writers tend to put themselves on the page in such a way that it's difficult for them to truly be unbiased about the material.
2) Fans and critics are not writers. Not that they can't write, but by definition they're not viewing things through the writers eyes. As Sterling Gates pointed out, he had to answer to people when he wrote the story. It's not like he could write whatever the Hell he wanted. Linkara can pick faults with the story, yet it doesn't seem like he takes into account that Sterling had to get his story approved by the higher-ups at DC.
It's easy to say why something sucks, but the 'I could do it better' approach falters because, honestly, it takes a damn good writer to work within a place like DC and Marvel and turn out something even half-decent with the structures in place, as James Robinson noted when they told him who he could/could not use in the JLA.
But when you start defending your story in such a way, it comes across like you're trying to pacify an audience who, even when you raise these points, still feels they're right and you're wrong. Linkara still disagrees with Sterling even after he's informed that Sterling didn't have creative control over the story... which seems amusing considering Linkara probably argues with the fans who criticise his material.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,320
|
Post by The Ichi on Jan 18, 2011 9:33:00 GMT -5
Uwe Boll has the right idea. He defends his work with his FISTS!
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jan 18, 2011 11:01:08 GMT -5
it all depends on the kind of criticism you're getting. constructive criticism and personal attacks are 2 different things.
|
|