You suggested Ebert get a “commission” on the number of stars he gives movies. I have a hard time knowing what you’re getting at if it’s not a suggestion that he’s compensated for giving good reviews.
It was a simile, (a simile is “a comparison using like or as” as my English textbook used to say) no one accused Ebert of actually taking bribes.
:eek: I just defended lissener, I feel dirty!
Yes, I know what a simile is, but thanks for making sure. Now maybe you can tell me what literary device is “which he actually does.” Is it like using “literally” non-literally? Now, nobody thinks that Ebert’s contract ties stars to compensation, but “paid by the star,” definitely suggests that in one way or another the man is paid more for good reviews than for bad ones. Unless a simile is “a clumsy use of words meant to express something completely other than what the words might mean, literally or figuratively, to any reader with a passing comprehension of the language.”
Dude. I suggested that Ebert’s income is tied to his popularity, which is tied to his penchant for positive reviews.
You, on the other hand, by having such a problem with that suggestion, suggest rather that Ebert would be just as popular–and just as marketable–if he gave mostly negative reviews.
Now I ask you.
You could have made that point clearer. I think you’re probably right to an extent, but Ebert would be less popular if he gave ONLY good reviews, and, moreover, the good reviews are a part of his good-natured, likeable persona that made him a TV celebrity and a well-known critic. So it’s more like, “Ebert is an unpretentious move critic who seems to love movies like a kid does, and that made him one of America’s favorite movie critics.”
It’s not like giving good reviews has vaulted every critic to fame and fortune. Some get famous for being vicious and snarky, others get famous for being puritanical snobs.
As long as your clearing things up, I’m still not straight on the difference between criticizing critics (which you seem to be for) and imposing a standard on someone who is only expressing an opinion (which you seem to be against). I don’t see how any critical or meta-critical endeavor isn’t done from some kind of subjective standard.
For me the difference is between saying what a critic *should *write, and reacting subjectively to what he *does *write.
It’s a fuzzy point, since the latter is still done with implicit criteria.
Incidentally, you can, of course, object to the criteria someone is using to judge something. “I hated Brokeback Mountain because I hate Westerns,” for example, is a rather stupid standard to judge that particular movie. I think you’d be better off keeping it specific than pretending there is some broad rule about “imposing a standard” that is measurably different than criticism itself.
And to go back to what started it all, the criticism was of what Ebert did, i.e., wander off topic in a movie review. I’d call that holding Ebert to an understandable and fair standard, particularly when his off-topic rambling wasn’t that enlightening.
I’d be happy to continue to engage in this discussion with you, but only after you’ve read the thread. Thanks.
You’re really going to have to drop that “read the thread” canard.
If only. That would be awesome. But your last post makes it clear that you have NOT read the thread; it directly contradicts evidence within this thread, and your questions are explicitly answered upthread.
No, I actually did read (and reread) the thread, and posted based on what I read. I’m sorry that’s so shocking to you, but I recommend you abandon this condescending/insulting approach to argument and try to make more reasonable and coherent arguments in the first place rather than demand people read them over and over until they find them persuasive.
Dude, I only got condescending when you got petulant and defensive; your tone went south way before I reacted to it. And I’m really not going to link to a post within this thread to make sure you read it. If you insist you have, then obviously it’s a problem of comprehension. Not worth my time for someone who’s not going to make the effort, and be insulting at the same time.
It’s time like this I recall the famous allegory of internet arguments to the special olympics. Godspeed, Lissener. I hope some day you get the bulletin board audience you deserve.
It’s times like this I recall what “allegory” actually means. But thanks. Good to know you can’t read, or at least understand what you read. Or, at least, you’re willing to pretend you can’t read rather than admit you were wrong. Noted for future reference.