It was over/under on whether this was Cafe Society or IMHO. Let’s hope I guessed right.
I recently read an article, linked in another thread, that was milking some outrage about YA Twitter trying to shut down a debut novelist from publishing a “problematic” book that the outrage brigade never even read. I thought, yeah, that’s some bullshit.
But then another thread reminded me that I have a longstanding axe to grind against 50 Shades of Grey.
I’ve read extensive point by point takedowns of the book, excerpts, analysis, etc.
But I’ve never read the book.
Do I get to have an opinion about it?
Should that opinion be taken seriously?
Do I have to read this freaking thing now? It’s gonna be awful. We all know it’s gonna be awful.
What are your thoughts on this? (Not the book, but the concept, though if you want to trash the book, have at it.)
Well, I have negative opinions about raw oysters, but have never eaten one. Nothing’s going to stop me from having an opinion, but other people should take my having never eaten them into account when I express that opinion.
I keep my opinions about things I haven’t consumed to a more general view. For example, my negative opinion of Tarantino movies is based on seeing a few clips and reading other people’s thoughts on them. From there I can safely tell myself they would be unpleasant experiences. Any opinion I have is based on limited data, so I do try to express myself cautiously.
It has to be possible to have an opinion on something before having read/watched it, because the decision whether to read or watch something is based on an opinion of it. Should anyone take that uninformed opinion seriously? Of course not, but then, should anyone take an informed opinion seriously, either? I mean, if you don’t like the Beatles, say, or do like something that everyone else thinks is horrible, the fact that their opinions are informed and “serious” doesn’t mean that you’re wrong.
Unless you have extensive knowledge of the book, despite having not read it yourself, probably not (and maybe not even if you do have that knowledge).
I mean, I have heard a fair amount of Fifty Shades (both the book and the movie), enough to tell me that it’s not great, and I wouldn’t enjoy it, so I guess I have an opinion on it, but it’s not a topic that I’d weigh in about with that “opinion” in a thread here, or in casual conversation if the topic came up.
Historians are, by profession, people who only know about and can only say anything about through 2nd hand techniques.
I’d also note that you can watch something and, for example, lack the context to “fully appreciate” it. E.g. you might be missing allusions to other things, symbolism, historical importance, etc. Just having watched something still might not mean that - according to some - you have enough knowledge to have a meaningful opinion.
Ultimately, more is more. Less is less. There’s nothing beyond that.
The way I conceive it is that if you haven’t read/tried/watched/etc… something, you can have opinions “around” it, but not really “about” it. And opinions “around” something don’t really have the authority that “about” it opinions do.
It’s the difference between me saying that 6ix9ine probably sucks, without having listened to him, versus me saying that Nickelback sucks, having seen them live before they were big, and then being unable to avoid them on the radio.
You get to have an opinion that is not fully informed. More of an awareness of what others thought about it. A slightly educated guess about it. No it shouldn’t be taken very seriously.
This came up once in a thread discussing Poor Things with someone who had not seen it giving the movie a very negative evaluation, arguing with those who had seen it about what the movie was. I considered that review bombing and was moderated for saying that. Several here argued that opinions based on hearsay and speculation were as valid as opinions based on experience of the actual thing.
You should read it yourself if being able to critique it meaningfully is important to you. I’ve no idea why that would be the case. Knowing what those similar to you who have read it think of it is enough to decide if you want to read something.
I have heard it is not a great book. My mother in law liked it and that suggests to me I wouldn’t. My daughter thought it was okay as a trashy fun thing and knows my tastes and says I’d not. But some people clearly enjoyed it.
My contribution to any discussion of it is worth very little.
ETA. I was Pitted for pushing back against the sight unseen beating up of it actually! You were part of that discussion. Same subject really.
In the context of this background, it’s not that those folks had opinions, or even that they were trying to persuade other people not to read the book, but they were trying to keep it from being published. (There are things about the above narrative, about which I know nothing, that are confusing to me – e.g. how could anyone know anything about the contents of a debut novelist’s book if it hasn’t been published yet? I’m taking it for granted that, if I knew the story, it would make sense.)
Of course, you can rabble rouse all day and threaten boycotts or other economic tactics; your question bears on whether other people ought to follow you in your attempts to prevent publication, not on the final outcome. How believable is your outrage if you haven’t read (or otherwise experienced) the book in question? Someone, somewhere, must have read it and shared their opinion, and other people took that opinion seriously, and are passing it on as if their 2nd-hand experience was just as valid. Sort of condemnation by hearsay. Anyway, of course those people can have opinions, and each reader of those opinions has to decide for themself how seriously to take them.
Assuming there isn’t some huge plot-twist or deliberately-hidden fact that wasn’t revealed in the headline - in other words, a purposefully misleading headline that borders on libel - one doesn’t have to have read or watched to have an opinion about it.
With some things, there just is a reputation. If a headline says “Katy Perry performs dance on stage in front of giant toilet with actor dressed up as a big poop” (which, by the way, actually happened) - one doesn’t have to watch the video to think, Well, there she goes doing her usual weird thing again.
Well actually… that is exactly a good example! I don’t listen to much pop and don’t follow Katy Perry. Looking up about that bit it sounds like the show, Play, was her Las Vegas residency, and whole thing was sort of “an ode to Pee Wee’s Playhouse”. Did it work? Was it funny, fun, entertaining? Or just a strange swing and a miss of weird? I can read different opinions about that. Maybe if I already had some sense of Perry I’d believe one assessment as likely and another not. That would have some basis anyway.
But I did not see it any more than you, and our opinions about how entertaining it was or just “usual weird” is worth little compared to those who actually went to the show.
Doesn’t mean I need to see it. I can still say I don’t think it sounds like my thing. As a WAG.
Historians by profession try to use original source material as much as possible. Few scholars of history would avoid reading source material of the subjects they are opining because someone else provided a take on it for them.
Well, if reading about a work and then forming at least some opinion about it isn’t valid, then we can do away with the entire movie/book/music reviewing industry. The whole point of reviews is to establish some baseline of opinion as to whether or not you might want to watch, read or listen to the work in question.
That being said, the nature of that opinion would be different than if you’d read the book yourself. A review can tell me I probably don’t want to read something (I’ve been down on a lot of cop shows lately, because I’m just tired of the shows showing cops as always the good guys, when in real life we’ve seen so many counter-examples, for instance). But you probably can’t have very strong opinions on the quality of the work. Is it well-written? Are the characters believable and compelling? Is the central mystery well-thought-out? Things like that. You could parrot the reviewer’s opinions, but you don’t know for sure.
Part of this also comes down to your opinions on the reviewers, as well. If you’ve compared your reaction to a work to the reviewer’s, and determined that you agree or disagree with it, that gives your opinions a bit more weight. We used to have a movie reviewer in my local paper who was incredibly consistent - if he didn’t like a movie, or thought the plot was too complicated, I’d almost always find it very good and interesting. I didn’t think he was a good reviewer, but he was certainly useful, due to his consistently wrong opinions
My daughter extolled the virtues of the movie Barbie, to an extreme amount. And, “Ma, you must watch it” and she went on to tell plots points at different times. We finally had to tell her hush about it.
Well, big blockbusters are not my thing.
I like Margot Robbie, but I didn’t really believe she could make a good Barbie.
I had tons of opinions.
I certainly didn’t go to a theatre. When it became available on my service I watched it.
I was correct. Many actresses could’ve done that part. Robbie was not the right person. She was beautiful and styled right. But just not quite doll like enough. Or something.
Meh. Not that great a movie. IMO.
I’m not sure if I formed my final opinion on the actual movie or just all the noise about it. And the Lil’wrekkers love of the movie.
Even if they were there, that does not change the proper methodology or the need to use multiple original source material.
By the way, I often go by recommendations when deciding what (not) to watch or read; is there any alternative? For instance, right now there is a specific experimental film that I have heard got bad reviews… but unless I bite the bullet and sit through it I will never know for sure.
Right. So my answer to the OP is that whether it’s OK to have an opinion about something that you haven’t read, watched, or otherwise directly experienced depends on how you act on that opinion. If you decide not to read a certain book or watch a certain movie based on bad reviews, that’s a legitimate decision and that is, in fact, what reviews are for. But if you also decide to badmouth the product all over the internet, or engage in boycotts or other direct actions based on something about which you have no first-hand experience, then you’ve gone too far. You are now engaged in the activity commonly known as “being an ass”.
Not quite the same, and it certainly does not belong in Cafe Society (and perhaps it ought to be spun off into its own thread in P&E or The BBQ Pit), but I must mention the opinions that Americans on a right-wing message board that I follow have about Alberta and Albertans. They’ve never been here to Alberta, they’ve never spoken with Albertans, but they sure have opinions about what Albertans like, and what they want. A little like someone saying that they do not like “Star Trek” without watching a single episode.
I’ll stop here, and I will leave it to the mods to decide where to put this post, but I did want to make the point that many times, people form opinions without having any direct experience with the subject matter.
That’s wrong, IMHO. I’ve tried Lord of the Rings, both the books and movies, and my opinion is that it is long and boring, much like Dr. Zhivago, which I have also read and seen, and is equally long and boring. I’ve seen Moonraker the movie, and it is a fun James Bond adventure, but unless you know the game of contract bridge, don’t read the book. (The first third of the book is taken up with a description of a game of contract bridge.) But I won’t remark on things I’ve never seen nor read. Don’t expect me to express an opinion on such.
This. There are qualities you can know from having reliable sources tell you (e. g., this show idolizes cops, and shows them as an unmitigated source of good) and qualities you can’t really know without experiencing the work (e. g. I found the show engaging and interesting). For the latter, you might form an opinion from reviews, and it might help you decide whether to watch the show/read the book/play the game. But the most you can really say is, “I’ve heard X about it”, and you don’t really have anything original to add to a discussion. But for the former, you might have a useful perspective on the value of shows that idolize cops that’s worth throwing into a discussion. Because that’s really a discussion about how the show interacts with our society, and you have direct knowledge of our society.
