True, marketing is one angle, but what does it say about the actual people?
I almost added a comment after I wrote this to say that I neglected to consider that thinking through things critically can be valuable in a 'deciding what you yourself think' sort of way. Or as brain exercise. I mean, I long ago decided, taking Hum 110, that the point of the class wasn't to decide what the books meant, or to contextualize them and understand how they came out of history/culture, or to understand the author's message, or whatever. It was just to think about the same issues that the author (influenced by the history and the culture) was saying something about--whether it was history or fiction or whatever. And perhaps enjoy the stories. And as it was a freshman course, to learn more about how to use history to inform a reading or use another text to view history, and write about it.
So...does writing movie reviews do that for you? I mean, you say it gets you thinking about how you would write things differently. That sounds kind of a step removed from deciding what you think about things, but maybe not.
I just got the sense that because you found it more interesting, then you thought it was more correct to write them that way. I mean, personally, I find heroes boring, so maybe I'm just not getting this. And, well, antiheroes are cool (not that they're always cool--I don't think they are--but as a protagonist you've got to be at least a little empathetic toward them) in a way that's only cool to the audience and might not actually be cool to them were they actually part of the antihero's world and not privy to his/her point of view. What do you mean by there not being rules for an antihero, but rules for a hero? Isn't one just a hero people don't approve of, and one a hero people do approve of? I guess I see what you're saying in talking about legitimacy, but that's the creepy power of leaders that tends to make them uninteresting to me. The only kind of legitimacy I'm really interested in seeing exerted is legitimacy based on honesty, respect, love, and dedication. I won't pretend that's not personal, but then, is your attachment to other kinds of power really impersonal? I dunno. Maybe I fail as a viewer/reader here, but I guess sometimes I can suspend my pessimism enough to watch some hero I can believe in because he's been made into some ideal, melodramatic world. But if I have to consider it more seriously or pick up something more serious in the first place, it's like...the fact that a 'hero' can get everyone to trust them says to me that something is wrong with the 'hero,' and I don't really get over that.
no subject
I almost added a comment after I wrote this to say that I neglected to consider that thinking through things critically can be valuable in a 'deciding what you yourself think' sort of way. Or as brain exercise. I mean, I long ago decided, taking Hum 110, that the point of the class wasn't to decide what the books meant, or to contextualize them and understand how they came out of history/culture, or to understand the author's message, or whatever. It was just to think about the same issues that the author (influenced by the history and the culture) was saying something about--whether it was history or fiction or whatever. And perhaps enjoy the stories. And as it was a freshman course, to learn more about how to use history to inform a reading or use another text to view history, and write about it.
So...does writing movie reviews do that for you? I mean, you say it gets you thinking about how you would write things differently. That sounds kind of a step removed from deciding what you think about things, but maybe not.
I just got the sense that because you found it more interesting, then you thought it was more correct to write them that way. I mean, personally, I find heroes boring, so maybe I'm just not getting this. And, well, antiheroes are cool (not that they're always cool--I don't think they are--but as a protagonist you've got to be at least a little empathetic toward them) in a way that's only cool to the audience and might not actually be cool to them were they actually part of the antihero's world and not privy to his/her point of view. What do you mean by there not being rules for an antihero, but rules for a hero? Isn't one just a hero people don't approve of, and one a hero people do approve of? I guess I see what you're saying in talking about legitimacy, but that's the creepy power of leaders that tends to make them uninteresting to me. The only kind of legitimacy I'm really interested in seeing exerted is legitimacy based on honesty, respect, love, and dedication. I won't pretend that's not personal, but then, is your attachment to other kinds of power really impersonal? I dunno. Maybe I fail as a viewer/reader here, but I guess sometimes I can suspend my pessimism enough to watch some hero I can believe in because he's been made into some ideal, melodramatic world. But if I have to consider it more seriously or pick up something more serious in the first place, it's like...the fact that a 'hero' can get everyone to trust them says to me that something is wrong with the 'hero,' and I don't really get over that.
But I dunno, maybe I'm making things up.