This morning I read this post on Roger Ebert's blog, comparing Ebert's approach to film criticism with that of another critic, Dan Schneider. It is an interesting read for me because it expounds upon something I struggle with when writing about any piece of art -- the balance between approaching a work emotionally and approaching it with intellectual detachment.
Although I wouldn't say Ebert is a sap by any means, the man himself readily admits he is more emotion-driven than a great many critics, even writing that film is "primarily an emotional, not a cerebral, medium." On the other hand, and take this opinion with a grain of salt because I have not read too much of Schneider's writings, Schneider seems more interested in how movies engage the mind, maybe downplaying emotion just a bit. (Although, to be fair, from what I have read about him, he seems to reject "sentimental" emotion more than emotion itself -- and his idea of what exactly is purely sentimental might be a bit wider than other people's. He seems to be fair in his general approach to movies, as well. But he also seems to be kind of a dick, haha.)
Anyway, getting back to the main point: I'd like to say I value emotion and intellect equally, but if you read anything I write, you probably know that is not true in the least, haha. I tend to be drawn a bit more to the emotional side of the spectrum; if I were to calculate the exact ratio, I would say it is 60-40 in favor of emotion -- enough to know that is what I value most, but not so much that I am blinded when a piece of fiction goes for cheap emotion. (I cannot say this has not happened to me in the past, however.) That's just how I am. Many of you are probably different, sliding up or down the scale in various ways.
But what I like most about this discussion is that it makes me think about just how much there can be behind a simple opinion, and that there isn't one approach to critical evaluation that works perfectly across every piece of fiction ever conceived. I value emotion, but I also know it is not the end all, be all of a fictional experience -- 2001: A Space Odyssey doesn't have much "traditional" dramatic emotion behind it, but it is nonetheless a great movie because it totally delivers, intellectually (in the ideas it explores about evolution and humanity's relationship with technology) and technically (it's a freakin' beautiful movie, visually and aurally). On the other side there is, say, Clue, where there is practically nothing intellectually (in terms of being a story that isn't about much more than it is about), but it is a very good movie because it delivers totally on an emotional level by being fucking hilarious (along with being well-written, well-acted, etc.).
One piece of Ebert's philosophy I have always appreciated is how he evaluates movies against each other: When he watches, say, Iron Man, he is not comparing it to Citizen Kane or The Seventh Seal, or what the hell ever. He's comparing it to Spider-Man, Batman Begins and Superman Returns. To me, that shows consideration of what a movie -- or TV series, or book, or anime, or whatever -- is aiming for. I don't watch Kimi ni Todoke and get pissed off because it isn't making sit back and contemplate human nature; it's just a simple, charming, somewhat nostalgic high school romance series. That's all it is trying to do. Now, whether it does this well is an entirely different story. I try my best to evaluate fiction on its own merits, what it has done and how far it is trying to go.
But, again, my way is not the only way. If someone wants to drop Kimi ni Todoke and criticize it because the series is simplistic and saccharine, then more power to 'em. Criticism is ultimately informed (hopefully) opinion. Different things are more important to different people; some might value deep characters most, some might value intricate plots with few holes the most, some might value pure emotional experience most, some might value social commentary most and so on. (Or maybe all of those things in one great package might not be too much to ask for! :P) I think fiction should be entertainment first and everything else second, but there are many who would disagree with that, and I can't say that mindset is completely wrong (although maybe a bit too serious :P). Plus, there is just so much to both emotion (in the range of emotions that can be explored and elicited) and intellect (in the amazing range of subjects/themes that can be explored, and the ways in which they can be explored), or even how the two are often successfully mixed, that it is foolish to discount either very much.
Ideally, I think any truly "great" piece of fiction is able to pull off that balance between emotion and intellect; my favorite movie of all time, Dr. Strangelove, does just that by delivering a thrilling story that engages the emotions (in very bizarre ways at times) while also savagely ripping apart the (at the time) ongoing Cold War in an intelligent way. That, to me, is a perfect movie.
Anyway, I think this post is all over the place -- certainly felt that way while writing it, haha -- but hopefully it makes sense. I'm curious as to how people go about evaluating fiction. Do you keep it simple? Do you take a lot of things into account? What's important for all of you? Does it change depending on the series/genre/whatever? I am genuinely interested in this, because the construction behind opinions is generally more interesting than the opinions themselves.
