Kmkmiller wrote:Same issue with that... Really... It's just an easy way to dismiss other ideas cause the other guy "talked about it wrong."
I think people can be rude and pedantic and you can have an opinion about that in terms of tone.... but to regulate the flow of ideas with that kind of philosophy feels self serving to me.
But who is regulating the flow of ideas? I think youre strawmanning here. Personally I have no problem praising an idea while criticizing presentation (or vice-versa), nor do I have a problem considering the two in tandem (they may be more interrelated than we credit).
Btw, I love Nochimsons work but I think she is guilty of what I'm talking about.
So what? Fundamentally here's my question... Is there this secret about Lynch's work that everyone knows but no one will ever talk about it cause that would be talking about it wrong?
What are you not saying, sir??? LOL.
Well, I do know who Judy is...
Seriously though, I don't think it's a matter of hiding something so much as realizing not everything can be articulated. A prose style that recognizes this (or is able to evoke it indirectly, perhaps through poetic language) or a method - like video essays - that is able to include the content itself as evidence strikes me as an addition to criticism, not a subtraction.