Recently a
friend linked to an article that generated some discussion. It was about why
they should not make a Wonder Woman movie. Most people did not want to agree,
but they found his points interesting. I commented as well, and I said that I
knew it sounded silly, but he used too many adjectives.
That was my
overriding thought, so that was what I needed to post, but that was not the end
of it for me, because I could not stop thinking about that. Okay, I don't tend
to throw out a lot of adjectives, but if that's someone else's writing style,
is it fair for me to criticize it?
It wasn't
just adjectives either; there were other issues with language usage. It was the
adjectives that stood out because the problem was that there was a lot of
language for not much content, and then I understood. I'm kind of rusty on my
rhetorical terms, but this is what I call bombardment.
The writer
did not have a strong argument. I'm sure he thought he was right, but probably
in the actual writing it started to fall apart, and there was an attempt to
fortify by puffing up. It may not have been conscious.
Really, how
it came across is that you shouldn't have a Wonder Woman movie because there is
nothing to her. She is merely the token female, made sexy for the male gaze
(she dresses trampy!) with all those curves, but then they will have some 90 lb
waif play her, and no one is going to connect to the Greek mythology
background, so that would just be a waste of money that you could use to make
art films.
Okay, she
is the Smurfette/Ms. Pac-man of the Justice League, who will be the wrong body
type, and even if Thor makes it look like mythological backgrounds can
be a part of a successful movie adaptation, Greek mythology is totally out
(cough Percy Jackson cough Clash of the Titans). Wonder Woman is
not needed both because she does not challenge the patriarchy and because the
patriarchy will not allow the movie to be made in the right way, so they should
use the money to make more movies like Fruitvale Station - like they did
with the Green Lantern budget!
He is right
on one point; it is completely possible that the studios would make a stupid
movie. This happens frequently, even with good source material, but that's a
reason to re-examine Hollywood, not to turn down specific source
material. Wonder Woman has had her ups and downs, but there is a good character
there, and the possibility of a good movie. My post isn't really about Wonder
Woman though.
I use
bombardment pretty frequently. When someone is sounding particularly bad -
maybe suicidal, maybe just down on themselves - then sometimes that is the tack
I will take. I will throw out so many compliments that they can't refute every
single one. Or I will mix it up, with something about my own experiences, and
how it can go for them, and reminders of good things, and then some affirmation.
I do this because they are upset teenagers, and thus generally quite skilled at
contradicting everything, but if I can slip in enough good things that they
forget to refute every single one, the one left can grow.
We are
using similar tactics, but I am careful to say only things that are true. Most
would see right through it if I didn't, but more than that, lies don't help in
the long run, and I am trying to do something good.
Getting
back to yesterday, I think music is vitally important, but music journalism
probably is not. The one Vice article was dated March 30th. The Reggie Kickstarter
ended April 19th, over goal, and now the album is available and the tour is
happening. This post will probably have no impact on whether or not a Wonder
Woman movie happens. So, why do I let this bother me?
Part of it
is that these techniques are used for writing about everything, including
politics. There is a distressing amount of ignorance out there, and it would
not be possible if people were committed to honesty. They may be some news
outlets that work actively to mislead, but now you have other news outlets who
feel it is not necessary to point lies out. Maybe only Chuck Todd said it, but
the attitude seems to be spreading:
I believe
that having good information is important for making good decisions, and I
don't think there should be so many obstacles to getting it. This is a problem.
That post calls it out as laziness and indifference. Those are problems, and
they are bigger problems than they look.
For
example, it really felt like the subtext to the Wonder Woman post was
"Don't make that movie because girls have cooties." There are people
who are bad misogynists and chauvinists, but there are also people who have
unrealized cases of it, and when we don't examine how this plays out, it is
perpetuated. We make movies with male heroes because females will watch the
male, but not vice versa, and that sounds like dealing with the existing
condition, but it is also casting that condition in concrete, with all of the
accompanying ramifications.
Honesty is
also important on a personal level, and it is more than just not consciously
telling lies, but being committed to truth, and to not being lazy or apathetic.
I suppose when Holden Caulfield rails against phonies, he has something like
that in mind, but once he has labeled everyone else a phony, how accurately
does he see anything? How trenchant does his own self-examination become?
With
blogging, it can tend more toward journalism or more toward a diary, but both
of those are areas where they are tarnished if they are not honest. Even with
fiction, writing should be honest; in this situation, this is how things would
go. This rings emotionally true. Fables and satires make up stories but they do
it to illustrate truths.
Yesterday I
read a post about someone who was leaving New York because of the wizards. It was
fantasy, but it made true, relatable points. A few weeks ago there was a piece
about someone feeling hostile to liberals, that conservatives were calling
brilliant, but it was just using a straw man argument (I do know the proper
term for that one), so it was feel good for them, but dishonest.
I will
acknowledge that these articles have been valuable to me. That process of
feeling that there is something wrong about them, and chasing that down, comes
with insight. There are already lots of opportunities for that. Perhaps writers
should focus on putting really good material into the world, and then we can do
our soul-searching over politics or the environment or our families. That's
actually what frustrates me the most about the media now - there are so many
important and real things that they could work up a lather over, and they could
mobilize people to make a real difference. That is not what's happening.
For my
examples, I don't care that they have different tastes or opinions. Taste in
music and books and movies is highly subjective, but that does not absolve the
reviewer of the responsibility of being fair, even to the stuff he hates. I
disapprove of meanness in general, but in this context I don't really care all
that much. If the desire to be nasty is the reason that the content is so
sloppy, that might make it a little worse. And, I do care that they don't
respect the readers or themselves enough to think critically and write cleanly
and actually do something valuable with their writing.
I don't
know much about this side of things, though, so I am going to try it out. I was
concerned about this week's band reviews, because with the holidays they might
get ignored. Also, there is something (musical but not a band) that I have been
hating. So, I will write a negative review on Thursday, and see how that feels.
That way, none of my regular bands get a bad date, probably not many people
will see the bad review, and I will truly be serving up a Thanksgiving turkey.
Wednesday, though, will be once more about music, and will once more mention
Reggie.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment