Meta-Criticism

. . . a critic is really just anyone who thinks out loud about something he or she cares about, and gets into arguments with fellow enthusiasts. -A.O. Scott, NYT

I am new to the world of fandom, really. Or at least fairly green. While I was friends with a number of groups that are generally associated with fandoms (Anime Club, Gaming Society) in college, it was in the role (once on the web page for one of them, even) of official unofficial member. I enjoyed their offerings on occasion, but was never devoted enough to actually bother joining. Clubs without dues, so far as I know, so you see how non-intense my commitment was. I would happily discuss Sailor Moon and Gundam Wing, happily play Once Upon A Time or Settlers of Catan, but that was about as far as I went.

Then a certain boy introduced me to webcomics. And I was quickly indoctrinated to the ways of fandoms, both by observation and discussion. 'Cause I'm a sucker for plot lines and character development. (Yes, I'm one of those girls who fell in crush with characters in books. Still do, sometimes.) I don't join communities . . . yet . . . but I do read comments on occasion. And I read (and occasionally comment on) Websnark. Who was remarking today on the entitledness of fandom.

Then along comes the New York Times. Also the fault of said boy; before him, I was happily shallow with Time and CNN International. And today's article about whether movie critics are getting it wrong, because they aren't managing to second guess audiences. His conclusion was that no, they shouldn't be. But the comment above . . .

First, is argument a critical (pardon the pun) part of criticism? Can one be a critic by discussing something artistic or thought-provoking in a movie if no-one disagrees with you? Is it really possible, actually, to take a stand on any issue without finding disagreement somewhere? Only if your audience is really, really small, so no big deal there.

More important is the comment that to critique something, you have to care about it. Care. As in feel some emotion. So criticism cannot be detached? No, not really. When people tell you, giving your critique of something, that you're too emotional, you might want to ask why you'd be taking your time if you weren't emotional. The logical extension of this is that there may be a fallacy involved in our system of professional critics. They may be emotional about artistry, but not always the piece in question. Are they still critics if they write/talk/etc. about something that had no effect on them (be it revulsion or exultation)?

Something to remember when you read the movie/book/music reviews.