http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:23:18 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/03/27/211542.php#comment-705734 Mr. Brigan, I read Carr's discussion. It seems like given your comments, you seem to be alluding to the fact that any novice can get online now, write on some subject authoritatively, and it shall be treated as fact. I wrote this review assuming that readers will know that the implication is that it is an opinion. Personally, I feel that it is an educated opinion, and I cite many examples to support my opinion, found both in the text of the film and outside of it as well. While, I'm a fan of intellectual film reviews, I don't necessarily feel everyone must approach criticism in the same manner, i.e. dropping multi-syllable words in an article with the sole intention of shutting the average reader out. Nor do I believe in reducing a film to the usual simplistic rating, such as "two thumbs up" or "three stars". While there is nothing wrong with either, it is just not my style. I definitely accept criticism from any and all that read what I've written. Disagreement and debate can be constructive. I just wish you could cite your own examples when making your comments such as this: "This review is written at, at most, a sixth grade level, and is incredible (sic) naive, simplistic and presumptuous." Without the examples to support your statement, it simply becomes an insult. To add to Carr's thoughts, the Internet has also allowed the common heckler to feel like they own the web, as they feel no obligation to support their dissent with facts. 705734@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:23:18 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/03/27/211542.php#comment-705719 Or you could just use your own discernment and "filter" it yourself. I thought it was a well-done review that connects Lynch's film with an audience that might not necessarily see it. I think a lot of people are turned off by any sort of pseudo-intellectual discussion of filmmaking and, as such, miss out on a lot of good material. More often than not, simplicity is a good thing. 705719@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:56:19 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/03/27/211542.php#comment-705715 Read this review, and then read Nicolas Carr's discussion of the "cult of the amateur." This review is written at, at most, a sixth grade level, and is incredible naive, simplistic and presumptuous. And, yet, it gets sorted out as a hit by Google et al., along with legitimate reviews by professionals. The net needs filters. Badly! 705715@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:29:28 EDT