Sans Fig Leaf
w
"Having opinions"
25 October, 2007
When I was in high school
the local newspaper employed a movie reviewer who drove me crazy. It
wasn't just that he hated movies that I loved. It wasn't even that, so
far as I could tell, he hated every single movie he ever reviewed. Both
of those traits contributed to my dislike for him, but the thing that
positively sent me round the bend every time was that the reasons he
gave for hating each movie made no sense.
He once spent four paragraphs critiquing the paint job on a car which
appeared on screen (once I saw the movie) for perhaps two minutes.
Another time he spent at least half the review decrying the fact that a
film about Japanese imigrants had cast some Chinese-american actors in
some of (but not all) the Japanese roles. I could understand if the
critique had been that the script, or set design, or costumes had mixed
up Chinese and Japanese culture. I could understand if a modern film
had cast a caucasian actor in bad "squint-eye" make-up. Those would be
legitimate faults with the film. I could even see making a single
observation about the casting, but making that the primary reason for
rating the movie as awful was just strange.
It was particularly annoying once I'd taken my first journalism class,
where we were taught, in regards to reviews, that a review needed to
explain why you liked or disliked whatever you were reviewing, with
enough information so the readers could decide for themselves whether
to take a chance on it. It wasn't meant to be a pronouncement delivered
from the heavens, it was a persuasion. The text book (and my teacher)
asserted that an excellent reviewer understood that not everyone shared
his or her perferences, and helped those readers, as well. Such a
reviewer might say, "While I didn't enjoy this film, if you liked
movies such as (insert name here), you're going to love this one."
To do that well takes more than simply acknowledging that people have
different opinions than you. It also means approving of their right to
have those opinions. In other words, not grudgingly tolerating the
existence of different opinions, but accepting them as valid reactions
to the world--different than, but not inherently inferior to, your own.
I encountered a similar principle in the realm of debate. The basic
principle of formal debate is that if you do not understand the
opponent's side of an argument well enough to argue his case
successfully in "court," then you don't understand the issue, period.
Some people hear that and think those principles
mean one must be so open-minded as to be completely wishy-washy about
everything. Not at all. One can construct a compelling, consistent
argument, without agreeing with every point of it.
Most differences of opinion come down to matters of taste or value. I don't happen to like cynical stories, for instance. So books, movies, plays, what have you, based on an excessively cynical worldview don't appeal to me. That's a matter of taste. I can still appreciate the skill with which such a story is put together.
I value rational
consistency more than adherence to a pre-defined moral code. So while I
can construct compelling arguments based on a particular ethos, I don't
feel obligated to endorse the conclusions of those arguments if they
lead to contradictions. Just as I don't feel obligated to endorse an
argument which happens to lead to a conclusion I agree with, if the
argument itself is constructed badly.
That last bit gets me into
trouble. I often find myself debating friends or acquaintences on
topics where we agree. Some mistakenly think I'm just being contrary
for the sake of yanking their chain. No, it's just that I can't stand a
poorly reasoned statement. To me it isn't enough that we agree on the
conclusion, but the way you reached the conclusion needs to be a valid
method. I have a lot more respect for someone who disagrees with me,
but can explain why in a convincing way (and can follow the arguments
for my side, even if they don't agree with it all) than I do for
someone who agrees with me, but doesn't actually understand why.
Which brings us back to
that reviewer who drove me nuts. I never did learn why a newspaper
employed for years a movie reviewer who hated all movies so. But I did
eventually realize that he almost certainly didn't understand why,
either.
Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art.
--Charles McCabe
.