indoctrination in the classics is, i think, vastly over-rated.
i did my undergraduate degree in English Lit, which is all about studying "the classics". they done nothing in the intervening years for my understanding of critical theory other than give me a broad base of material from which to form comparative critical analysis, but that's only one form of critical theory.
personally, i'm far more likely to appreciate critical commentary from people who are articulate about why they liked what they liked and disliked what they disliked. comparative critique is really only valuable to the other classical wanks who have read the same classical texts (or seem the same classic movies, etc.). and i've read too many reviews where the critic got his or her nose out of joint about a new production's "derivation from classical themes", as if the lack of originality is a detriment.
seriously, if the audience going to see "Fast & Furious IV" hasn't seen the first three, they're not going to care much what the critics thought about the first three (okay, that was maybe a bad example, as a lot of people will go see #4 because they know it's the regrouping of original cast & crew in the studio's apology for sequels 2 & 3, but i digress ;-) or how F&F is derivative of classic Steve McQueen somethingerotherthisthatandtheotherthing.
nor do i expect critics to personally have anything less than my own eclectic tastes, which means i allow they're going to praise things i hated, and i'll love things they panned. i don't read any one critic consistently enough these days to worry about consistency i their own tastes, but mostly just to get a sense of what the Thing i'm interested in is about from the perspective of someone who's already read/seen the Thing in question.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-05 03:15 pm (UTC)i did my undergraduate degree in English Lit, which is all about studying "the classics". they done nothing in the intervening years for my understanding of critical theory other than give me a broad base of material from which to form comparative critical analysis, but that's only one form of critical theory.
personally, i'm far more likely to appreciate critical commentary from people who are articulate about why they liked what they liked and disliked what they disliked. comparative critique is really only valuable to the other classical wanks who have read the same classical texts (or seem the same classic movies, etc.). and i've read too many reviews where the critic got his or her nose out of joint about a new production's "derivation from classical themes", as if the lack of originality is a detriment.
seriously, if the audience going to see "Fast & Furious IV" hasn't seen the first three, they're not going to care much what the critics thought about the first three (okay, that was maybe a bad example, as a lot of people will go see #4 because they know it's the regrouping of original cast & crew in the studio's apology for sequels 2 & 3, but i digress ;-) or how F&F is derivative of classic Steve McQueen somethingerotherthisthatandtheotherthing.
nor do i expect critics to personally have anything less than my own eclectic tastes, which means i allow they're going to praise things i hated, and i'll love things they panned. i don't read any one critic consistently enough these days to worry about consistency i their own tastes, but mostly just to get a sense of what the Thing i'm interested in is about from the perspective of someone who's already read/seen the Thing in question.