Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

It's like people don't know that legit critique is about a singular legit thing.

It's not a matter of "knowing"; they don't agree with you. :-) People are making fun of the way you treat your opinion about what is "legitimate critique" as fact; when what's a suitable topic of critique is, itself, a matter of opinion.

People disagree on how good a movie is, or what the most important factors are in coming to that decision. That is fine. What causes trouble is saying "these people's opinions are invalid because they based it on these factors, which I believe to be beyond criticism". As others have said, this violates a basic tenet of reviewing: that people can hold different opinions on what's relevant.

To put it another way: if you set up your own Diamond Award which celebrates unappreciated examples of Intentionalism, that'd be fine. But if in promoting it, you said the Crossie Award for Guilty Pleasure was "biased and illegitimate", you should expect some pushback.

Using the term "Diamondmanism" is a little immature, but it is in response to the use of a moralistic argument on how reviews ought to be; more specifically, asserting that certain aspects of a work are beyond criticism, and anyone who does so is Doing It Wrong.

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.