I can testify that this applies to art history seminars as well as TV.
April 18, 2015 10:04 AM   Subscribe

The Four Worst Types of TV Critics In all four cases—the Theorists, the Activists, the Purists, and the Partisans—we’re treating the inherently subjective fields of art and art criticism as things we can be objectively right about. We’re taking work that’s complex and capable of conveying multiple contradictory meanings and reducing it to a simple either/or, yes/no proposition. In other words, we’re fucking up.
posted by the phlegmatic king (18 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite
 
By remarkable coincidence, these are also the Four Most Obnoxious Party Guests.
posted by tspae at 10:41 AM on April 18, 2015 [5 favorites]


This article is great, and "begging your pardon, fuck no" just became my favorite retort.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:55 AM on April 18, 2015 [1 favorite]


None of these four stereotypes has anything to do with the claim that "we’re treating the inherently subjective fields of art and art criticism as things we can be objectively right about." In anything, it's the converse. The reason these sorts of writers are so ubiquitous is because audiences tend to think you can't make objective aesthetic judgments, and critics are writing to those audiences. Someone who thinks you can't make aesthetic judgments is going to be forced to theorize about what might happen next, discuss the politics of the piece, etc. But the best film critics were completely unafraid to write about how a movie was good or bad.
posted by painquale at 10:58 AM on April 18, 2015 [16 favorites]


The word "critic" still evokes for me the writer with the regular gig at a formal publication, where this uses it inclusive of blogspot users and forum commenters and so forth. If we talk just about the former I find the biggest, most pervasive of thse four types is The Activist. (Salon's film and TV criticism used to be utterly without value back when two of their headline critics were of this type. Both gone now, fortunately.)

All four types are of course in inexhaustible supply in the intarwebs, but so is every other kind of blather and you just have to filter for it like everything else.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:01 AM on April 18, 2015 [1 favorite]


Eh, I dunno. I think all of these are terrible when done badly. When done well, they are as entertaining and enlightening as any other kind of critical engagement.

I think theorists are best when they are working with finished material where they know that they are spinning out crazy theories as opposed to guess at what will happen next; I once read a great article in a comics magazine in the 80s which tried to prove that Dr. Doom, Kang the Conqueror, and Rama-Tut (along with a couple of other characters) were all the same guy. It was really amusing and kind of silly (and the author knew it). Without rooting around in the subtext (which is what theorizing is), you don't have criticism; you have technical analysis, synopsis, and review.

Similarly, Activism, when done well, is powerful stuff. It's especially useful in genre writing where perpetuation of tropes often masks assumptions about race, gender, class, etc that limit the way stories are told or even the kind of stories that can be told. I don't think, for example, that Lucas was intentionally racist in The Phantom Menace, but his uncritical adoption of Pulp tropes (with their attendant racist baggage) had echoes that made his film less effective as it jarred attentive audience members out of the story on a regular basis.

It's harder to find a good example of purist writing. I don't think that the book is always better, and it's important to remember that novels and films are really really different media -- the novel will almost always be able to do more with character development and supporting characters than a film (although a TV series has a better chance). On the other hand, the people who pointed out that the Jackson Hobbit films had turned a swift sprightly YA story about an unassuming man thrown into an adventure into a ponderous and over-long CGI fest about a cranky dwarf getting what was coming to him aren't wrong, either. ON the other hand, the most faithful recreation of a book I can recall was Perez-Reverte's The Fencing Master, where the film managed to get the entire plot and most of the cast of the novel on the screen intact, but which also reversed the emotional impact of the final scene (as far as I can tell, I read/watched them in translation).

Lastly, I'm not sure there are any real critics (as I see George_Spigot has pointed out) who fall in the category of shippers and fellow travelers. Anyone who gets emotionally invested in a show probably develops strong feelings about which characters should/should not be paired up, but it's hard to write criticism based on that (although there were certainly a lot of people who have pointed out that "will they/won't they" plotting is a cheap and dangerous tactic, because, so often, when they do, all the energy goes out of the show because the writers have no idea what to do next).

Anyway, all of these approaches can be used fruitfully to tease meaning out of fiction, and none of them is particularly tied to the dogmatic insistence on "rightness" that seems to be the author's real complaint.

*Oblique reference to a Minor Spoiler for Game of Thrones Season 4, although, if you've read the article, you already know this*

It's a little weird that the author picked that particular scene to start from, because it was, in my opinion, a real misstep for the show. Not because it was a nasty moment that sullied the characters; the GoT cast is so deep in the muck it's hard to imagine anything soiling the characters beyond what the main plot already does -- that is one of the points of the show -- but it was a jarring and off-putting, and the failure of subsequent scenes to put any context or gloss on the event makes it feel more like a gratuitous bit of nastiness (hey, it's been 3 shows since we had a rape; let's add one here) than an intentional move to redefine the characters involved or progress them towards something. So, if the author's primary complaint is that people shouldn't be bothered by that scene or state that they were bothered, what does he expect them to do?

In short, C-: promising concept, but the thesis is insufficiently developed, poorly supported, and lacks coherent direction and conclusion. Also, -5 points for unnecessary use of .gifs.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:34 AM on April 18, 2015 [8 favorites]


Aren't most of these people just delivering one reading of a "complex and contradictory work" with more than one correct reading? Isn't that a totally standard approach to criticism?
posted by atoxyl at 11:59 AM on April 18, 2015 [4 favorites]


It's a little weird that the author picked that particular scene to start from

I think it was because it checked all the boxes as an example to be used for the author's point. As televised, it differed from the book, there was a gender/sexual/violence aspect to it, there was ambiguous messaging outside the show from the creators regarding intent -- each of the "four types of critics" had a bone to pick here.

If you could pick one scene from one show that would spark all of these reactions at the same time, this would be on the short list.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:52 PM on April 18, 2015 [3 favorites]


If you could pick one scene from one show that would spark all of these reactions at the same time, this would be on the short list.

I suppose, although, at this moment, it's a pretty indefensible scene where the writers and showrunners seem to have been asleep at the wheel. It was unpleasant, somewhat out of character, not in the books, and a pointless evocation of sexual violence -- plus, it has not had any noticeable effect on the show so far. So using a gratuitous and objectionable scene as an example to show how people are being unreasonable objecting to a scene for being gratuitous and objectionable (in the wrong way) is kind of a misstep for the author of the article. He needs to show that people are writing unreasonable theories based on that scene, making unreasonable social commentary based on that scene, people objecting to the scene not being in the book *, and people objecting to the way the scene interfered with their shipping* (etc). He does not do this in any meaningful way. And then he needs to explain why these particular criticisms are wrong as relating to a scene that felt poorly written and out of place.

So, yeah, I guess I can see why he used that as a jumping-off place, but he puts an awful lot of weight on a slender branch.

Revised Grade: D. promising concept, but the thesis is insufficiently developed, poorly supported, example weak, and lacks coherent direction and conclusion. Also, -5 points for unnecessary use of .gifs. -10 points for lack of bibliography. Revisions due by next class period.**

*He kind of does this, but he really ought to cite and cite again (this is the internet; how hard is it to Google and link?)

** I will confess that I am avoiding grading. Can you tell?
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:32 PM on April 18, 2015 [2 favorites]


I once read a great article in a comics magazine in the 80s which tried to prove that Dr. Doom, Kang the Conqueror, and Rama-Tut (along with a couple of other characters) were all the same guy.

I, uh, believe that's pretty much canon. Maybe it's something that was retconned in as a result of such theories, in an "inmates running the asylum" kind of way?

Comics, everybody!
posted by Wandering Idiot at 1:39 PM on April 18, 2015 [3 favorites]


I, uh, believe that's pretty much canon. Maybe it's something that was retconned in as a result of such theories, in an "inmates running the asylum" kind of way?

Maybe? As I said, it was long ago and in another country. However, thank you for introducing me to that magnificent chronology, which contains the lines "The Scarlet Witch uses her power to break out of giant jars they are imprisoned in," "Later he came from the 25th century and after defeating and imprisoning Merlin he attempted to take over King Arthur's Court and change history by attacking the rest of the world," and "Kang later has a brief encounter with the Hulk, who he utilizes in a scheme to change Earth during World War I, as he is unable to enter 1917 due to a time-storm." proving that the spirit that enlivened comics in the 50s and early 60s never died, it just slumbered until it could get its groove on with Marvel's time travel stories.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:02 PM on April 18, 2015 [1 favorite]


What kind of mind writes in terms of putting people into categories thereby conflating identities with roles or ideas ? This pseudo-anthropologic mindset rather makes me feel like I'm in middle school again.
posted by polymodus at 2:03 PM on April 18, 2015


There is a term for a TV Critic who isn't a Theorist, Activist, Purist, or Partisan. It's "Network PR Flack".
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:40 PM on April 18, 2015


Oh, and Social Justice Warrior originated as a "badge of honor" for progressive activists who are D&D-savvy that people who oppose Social Justice but don't want to admit to it turned into a "term of mockery", exposing their own agenda more than anything else. The sad fact that Injustice Warriors are being more successful as "intolerant keyboard commandos" causes stupid writers like Sean Collins to get it totally wrong (and empower the Injustice Warriors even more).

(as for using D&D classes, I prefer Social Justice Wizard myself)
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:52 PM on April 18, 2015 [1 favorite]


It's only a term of mockery if you let it be one, surely? A social justice warrior fights for social justice. Seems like a good thing?

On topic, imo the job of art is to be good art. Where ideological critique makes better art by exposing historical blindspots it is useful and welcome (for e.g., having better female characters in games makes them better art) where it is used as a tool of power to self-aggrandize the critics it is ugly and borderline immoral.

The lines between these two can be pretty blurry, natch.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:19 PM on April 18, 2015


It's only a term of mockery if you let it be one, surely? A social justice warrior fights for social justice. Seems like a good thing?

Like with keyboard commando, the understood negative implication is that all that is being done is arguing online and not anything of concrete value offline.

So using a gratuitous and objectionable scene as an example to show how people are being unreasonable objecting to a scene for being gratuitous and objectionable (in the wrong way) is kind of a misstep for the author of the article. He needs to show that people are writing unreasonable theories based on that scene, making unreasonable social commentary based on that scene, people objecting to the scene not being in the book *, and people objecting to the way the scene interfered with their shipping* (etc). He does not do this in any meaningful way. And then he needs to explain why these particular criticisms are wrong as relating to a scene that felt poorly written and out of place.

My read on the article was that his point wasn't that the criticisms were wrong, just that what he wanted more from a critic was someone who tackled them all at the same time. All four aren't going to have something to say on every scene, but a top critic should have something to say on most scenes in a show like Game of Thrones from some perspective. I think he feels people too dedicated to one of the four types are holding themselves back from being the best critics they can be.

Personally, I think there is an audience for things like theories so why not just talk about that if you have an interest and insight on that too.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:35 PM on April 18, 2015 [2 favorites]


Oh, and Social Justice Warrior originated as a "badge of honor" for progressive activists who are D&D-savvy that people who oppose Social Justice but don't want to admit to it turned into a "term of mockery", exposing their own agenda more than anything else. The sad fact that Injustice Warriors are being more successful as "intolerant keyboard commandos" causes stupid writers like Sean Collins to get it totally wrong (and empower the Injustice Warriors even more).

Do you have a cite for this? Everything I've read about the term previously indicates that it originated as a pejorative. (For example.)
posted by milk white peacock at 7:36 AM on April 19, 2015 [1 favorite]


Surely an activist who is D&D savvy would be a Social Justice Fighter?
posted by squinty at 7:31 PM on April 19, 2015


Yeah I didn't really get much of the article. Primarily it put me off by implying that theorists are idiots while picking out same examples which are interpretations. I can say that the last twenty minutes of Minority Report are a dream, and so is the last episode of Breaking Bad. I can support that with some textual evidence. I can be aware that this cannot be "true" because there is no such thing, but it's still enjoyable to interpret the text in that way. Isn't that the fun of criticism? Interrogating the text for meanings that are hiding in plain sight?
posted by Cannon Fodder at 12:22 AM on April 20, 2015 [1 favorite]


« Older Movies are *bleep*in' great and being alive is so...   |   Brought to you by the Wikipedia "random article"... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments