Why do entertainment critics exist as writers for newspapers? They embroil me each time I read their reviews. A market research report with a sample size of one would be worthless to a company. Yet, how well a movie, a play, or a CD fares is based many times on an opinion rendered by a few individuals.
Even a batch of critics’ opinions is a very small sampling. Sales of entertainment offerings either soar or plummet because their personal tastes were either positively or negatively stimulated. Why do we rely so heavily upon strangers’ opinion of something, when we have no idea at all how they really think? The entertainment industry is really missing the boat on this one.
I have a friend named Karl who loves to watch movies. In one week he may go to a theater five times or more. Since I know him well I am inclined to take his opinion of a movie more seriously. What he says about a movie impacts my decision on whether I am interested in seeing it. I also know that there are genres of movies that Karl disdains and openly admits regretting have paid a ticket to see those. Coupled with my own tastes and knowing Karl as I do, I am actually more inclined to see some movies he doesn’t like, because I like those types of flicks. I am rarely disappointed. (I enjoy watching those “barbaric” fight scenes, as he puts it, a lot.)
When you get right to it, a movie a CD, a play or a concert reviewed by a critic is an editorial. It is an opinion. Editorials are generally written by journalists who have taken time to research a topic, analyze the pros and cons of the situation, and then report their summarization of it. An entertainment critic drives to an event; enters the premises; buys a soft drink and some popcorn; watches the event while eating and drinking; and then offers a personal opinion on a subjective topic.
Why does their opinion mean anything more than the audience who just did the same thing? You could garner a more educated opinion hanging out at the exodus and randomly asking five strangers what they thought. What would be the difference?
Reviewing a new CD is even simpler. I think I would enjoy getting paid for this a lot. Pop it into a player, listen to it, and then type your opinion of it. How hard is that to do? The most difficult challenge is to stretch that opinion in to enough words to call it an article. What a frivolous job!
Why take an opinion to heart when you don’t know anything about the person expressing it except for how they write? Which is another aspect of these opinionated critters that makes me livid.
Have you ever read a review from an entertainment critic without having a dictionary and a thesaurus within reach? Because if you don’t have those tools holstered at your hips, more times than not, you will not be able to understand what they are attempting to convey to you. It stymies me why these guys have to express themselves with words that would confound a lexicographer. Perhaps it is their way of validating the nonsensical use of their English degrees. I also am willing to bet that they don’t even know what most of those abstruse words even mean.
There, I just used one to prove my point. “Esoteric” would have worked as well. But, no, I opted to be eclectic.
Using words only understood by English professors, wordsmiths and avid readers is a trite way to substantiate one’s credibility as a writer. The majority of those uppity freeloaders lean on such words so that we think they are special. Why do they do that to their readers? There is absolutely nothing wrong with a diverse vocabulary. Using mottled words is just peachy. But it is a vapid act of desperation when you are writing about an action-adventure movie with numerous car chases or reviewing new music by Dashboard Confessionals.
Merriam-Webster (http://m-w.com) has a service where they will email you an obscure, seldom-used word that stems from the 14th or 15th century every day. They also provide the etymology of the word too. It is actually very interesting. Drop a few of those hummers into an everyday conversation and see what happens. It is like farting in an elevator.
Newspapers are wasting valuable advertising space and money employing the majority of these pompous clowns. A real writer pulls readers into their writing. Pushing readers away and making them reach for external tools to understand what a scribe is trying to convey is a grave shortcoming for a writer. These preternatural fools should be booted out of the writing community and rocketed toward Uranus.
Keep this in mind the next time you decide not to see a movie, attend a play or pass on picking up a CD just because some mediocre writer didn’t like it and expressed such in a confusing manner.
Personally, I am sticking with my pal Karl.
No comments:
Post a Comment