|
I think some of the enjoyment of scathing reviews of otherwise unoffensive pap is that you can feel the frustration and loathing of the reviewer at being forced to consume a steaming pile of poo poo and then write a trip report that is required to be much more precise than, "it tasted like poo poo." They're being asked to critique a work that was more than likely written purely to fill space and was never meant to be serious literature. Same with music and movies, et al. There's plenty of room for criticism of mass-produced pop-culture works and what they mean and why we like them, etc., but this isn't that. This is, "read one of the Drizzt novels and pretend you're critiquing 100 Years of Solitude." Bad reviews of good works is just fun, sometimes you'll get some genuine insight tucked in there somewhere, but often just baffling or hilarious reactions to the text. To be fair, cold-reading Shakespeare is loving terrible and I would agree with the review of Hamlet if I had just picked up the script and tried to bungle my way through it. Russian novels are kind of a downer, but that's because Russia was kind of a downer. Since I'm an RPG kinda guy, have some low-hanging fruit: F.A.T.A.L. I can only hope that if I ever publish my terrible game that it elicits a similar beating. For different reasons, I hope.
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jan 24, 2025 11:06 |
|