recentpopularlog in

criticism

« earlier   
天国拯救:突破惯例
「中世紀模擬器」《天國拯救》如何細膩重現中世紀波希米亞地區的平民生活,從而讓極為刁鑽的系統得以產生趣味,在 bug 堆中賣出不錯的成績。
gaming  criticism 
yesterday by elek
Silence is beautiful, unsettling, and one of the finest religious movies ever made - Vox
Silence is the kind of film that cuts at everyone’s self-perceptions, including my own. I haven’t been able to shake it, because I need to remember — now, frankly, more than ever — that I am not able nor responsible to save the world, let alone myself. How the world changes is a giant, cosmic mystery. To grow too far from that and become hardened in my own belief is a danger: I grow complacent and deaf, too willing to push others away.

In Silence, nobody is Christ but Christ himself. Everyone else is a Peter or a Judas, a faltering rejecter, for whom there may be hope anyway. What Scorsese has accomplished in adapting Endō’s novel is a close reminder that the path to redemption lies through suffering, and that it may not be I who must save the world so much as I am the one who needs saving.
film  criticism 
3 days ago by rbhlms
Practical Peer Review
The second truth is perhaps even more depressing. Even making all allowances for this, your referees have (probably) read your manuscript with more attention, care, sympathy and general clue that most other readers will muster. In the first place: most papers which get published receive almost no attention post-publication; hardly anyone cites them because hardly anyone reads them. In the second place: if one of your papers somehow does become popular, it will begin to be cited for a crude general idea of what it is about, with little reference to what it actually says.

...

None of this should be surprising. One of my favorite books is one of the very few thoroughly empirical contributions to literary criticism, I. A. Richard's <a href="https://archive.org/details/practicalcritici030142mbp">Practical Criticism</a>. In an experiment lasting over several years in the 1920s, Richards took a few dozen poems, typed up in a uniform format and with identifying information removed, and presented them to literature students at Cambridge University, collecting their "protocols" of reaction to the poems. It is really striking just how bad the students were at receiving even the literal text of the poems, never mind providing any sort of sensible interpretation or reaction. And these were, specifically, students of literature at one of the premier institutions of higher learning in the world. As Richards said (p. 310), anyone who thinks their alma mater could do better is invited to try it **. Poems are not, of course, scientific papers, and I don't know of anyone who's done a translation of Richards's protocols to academic peer review. But I know of no reason to think highly-educated people are systematically much better at reading papers than poems.

The moral I would draw from this is not to seek a world without referees. It is this: whatever your referees find difficult, confusing or objectionable, no matter how wrong they might be on the merits, will give many of your other readers at least as much trouble. Since science is not about intellectual self-gratification but the advancement of public knowledge, this means that we have to take deep breaths, count backwards from twenty and/or swear, and patiently attend to whatever the referees complain about. If they say you're unclear, you were, by that very token, unclear. If they say you're wrong, you have to patiently, politely, figure out why they think that, and re-express yourself in a way which they will understand. Anger or sarcasm, however momentarily gratifying (and wow are they momentarily gratifying) will not actually change anyone's mind, and so they do not actually serve your long-term goal of persuading your readers of your conclusions.

"When the referees have a problem, there's a problem" is, quite literally, one of the most ego-destroying lessons of a life in science, but I am afraid it is a lesson, and the sooner it's absorbed the better.
peer_review  academia  criticism 
4 days ago by jfbeatty
Against Clarity | The Comics Journal
William Blake, illuminated manuscripts, early sequential art
comics  art  criticism 
5 days ago by cwill
Gravity of the Flux: Michael Mann’s Miami Vice • Senses of Cinema
On paper and in appearance, Miami Vice develops between a police story and a spy film and, before it blows up, the origin of its fiction is the murder of an FBI agent who has infiltrated the drug world. In order to solve the case, two Miami police detectives, James ‘Sonny’ Crockett (Colin Farrell) and Ricardo ‘Rico’ Tubbs (Jamie Foxx), pass as hardened drug dealers and make contact with the financial administration of a drug cartel, a vast organization endowed with staggering means. In a few minutes, Mann disposes of the picturesque approach of the genre (colourful gangsters, men with working-class hands, smooth talkers accompanied by a very definite bad taste) and composes a picture of the mafia with vague contours, a state-within-the-state equally at ease in the transfer of funds on a grand scale as in the clinical execution of offenders. At first sight, Michael Mann reconnects with the vein of the film-dossier of the 1970s, that of Three Days of the Condor (Sydney Pollack, 1975) and The Parallax View (Alan J. Pakula, 1974), a vein he already resumed with The Insider (1999), and re-employs his motif of identity reversals, his obsession with plot (who, from the FBI, CIA or Miami Dade, inhabits the traitor?) and his pervasive paranoia. But at bottom, Mann films this story of big-time trafficking like a high-tech war film where it is above all a question of logistics, an exchange of information, of surveillance and of technological mastery. Mann moreover repeatedly underlines the collusion between police and military techniques: on the way to a secret meeting place where Jesus Montoya (Luis Tosar), the big boss of the cartel, awaits them, Sonny and Ricardo realize that the drug traffickers use a system of electronic interference identical to the one employed by the CIA in Iraq. Finally, the film’s big shoot-out does not invert – as does Heat – the codes of a precise cinematographic genre (the Western), but rather is inspired directly by the imagery of war reportage: deafening and ultra-realist sound of weapons, moments captured live, discontinuity and partial illegibility of the action, proliferation of points of view (= suppression of a point of view), snipers in ambush.
movies  criticism 
7 days ago by max_read
ContraPoints
Fascinating and smart cultural and philosophical criticism
xoxo  tootme  transgender  trans  lgbt  criticism 
8 days ago by nelson

Copy this bookmark:





to read