Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:19:41 -0700
From: "gary patrick norris" <ngary2-AT-qwest.net>
Subject: Re: lost dawg




>On the nature of criticism however, I don't totally agree.  Or I should say,
>I agree with the concept being put forth but I think that part of the process
>of seeing things in new ways and looking at the text as the author intended
>and all those points, is in talking about it.  In saying, "I didn't like this
>film because..." that is NOT the same things as saying "I think the film is
>bad because" (which I hate, and drill my students on mercilesly)...but rather
>"this was my personal response, what was yours..why did you think that?" 
>Which is a tacit saying.."This is what I saw but I am open to other seeings
>and would like to hear about them."  Viewing doesn't take place in a vacuum
>either.  We always bring what we have seen and experienced before in with us.
>  Sometimes we can abandon that easily...sometimes we have to get by with a
>little help from our friends.
>
>Andrea Campbell



Andrea, I understand your concerns, esp concerning involving students 
or getting students involved.  I teach and I understand the 
difficulty.

But talking is important for criticism if something is being 
addressed that is worth talking about.  We are lazy speakers.  We let 
our audience think for us.


Now the enjoyment of the chora, the pleasure in speaking, the 
enjoyment of la langue:  well we should encourage it.


g
-- 
Every visible power is threatened, especially when it
rests on a usurpation that alienates both its victims
and its accomplices.  Thus the detective's tactics are
those of the minister and the Chief of State.  Power will
be shady or will not be at all. . .
     --H de Balzac, Introduction to Une tenebreuse affaire


     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---