Chronic Murmuring

That's no more dirtier a statement than you or I would make Mr. Cunningham!

Not so sure he's a dirty old man as much as he'd like to see someone take a little farther some of the real-life incidents that might arise should such an impossible event occur. "Like Father, Like Son," came close when Kirk Cameron (in Dudley Moore's body, given the premise of the movie) was being seduced by the wife of the head of medicine, his father's boss.

I was mostly just joking around. Given what Josh had said, I thought it was kind of funny that Ebert was lamenting that for all these switcheroo movies, no one had made an R-rated one. I can only imagine how that might be more interesting to him, given what Josh says is a trend in Ebert's reviewing in which he mainly likes movies with lots of t&a. ;)

Hey, at least he's honest, and he is a dang fine writer.

Oh yeah, I love him. I'm just joking around.

dang fine writer? wow, i don't think you can exactly call a MOVIE critic that. shakespeare was a dang fine writer. dr. leithart is a dang fine writer. but ebert? me thinketh not.

anyways, i read that review too, and chuckled to find myself being proven right yet again...

Sure you can call a movie writer a fine writer. Now who's being the snob?

i am. to some degree, i mean, i just think that freaking roger ebert is not a "dang fine writer". if you want to talk about newspapermen who can really write, let's talk about dave barry. now that guy is cool.

Roger Ebert sucks more than a headless PEZ dispenser. He should be ground into tiny bits and force-fed to small, burrowing mammals. You could charge admission. Give out t-shirts. Fun, fun. Bring the kids.

Let me get this corrent: Dr. Leitheart, read the world over by about 40 people, half of whom blog, all of whom went to NSA and bring new meaning to the word "insular, is a "great" writer, and Ebert read by millions, is not?

Yes, Dave Barry is a good writer. What's your point?

Now I'm not saying popularity = quality, but do you have a coherent standard other than what's on your "current reads" list?

you say that you don't believe that popularity = quality, but then you base your entire argument around that...so how are you not implying that?

yes, of course i have a standard behind it. dr. leithart (read by many more people than you give him credit for) has legitimate goals in his writing, outlines them, gives his arguments from scripture most of the time (rather than his "opinions"), and masterfully goes through his subject/topic. sure, he's not read by many compared to ebert, but that is a good thing. i'd rather 50 people with good intentions and noble efforts read my work than millions of pagans in mainstream, anti-Christian America. also, there is an objective standard behind good writing to which ebert does not measure up to, and dr. leithart does (in my feeble opinion). if you want, we can do a case-study of dr. leithart's writing and ebert's. and i didn't say he is a great writer, but a "dang fine" one. and that was just one example. if you want another, i'd be happy to pull others out. also, i still maintain that mere movie "criticism" cannot qualify one as a "dang fine" writer.

my point behind the dave barry comment is that he is an example of a good writer, as opposed to ebert, who merely dishes out his opinions on movies, and not very well at that. could i do it as well? no. but i doubt ebert could make a good movie or teach my chemistry class, either. do i read ebert? yes. but i would by no means qualify him as a dang fine writer. period.

I don't even know where to begin...

Alright, I say popularity doesn't necessarily equal quality, but, it can occasionally, be an indication that work of art/literature sucks. Take "Gigli" the movie for example. There are many reasons the movie sucks, one of them being that nobody wanted to go see it.

You're not getting what I'm gettin' at 'cause you're clinging hardcore to the desire for a methodological black n' white approach to this issue. At least, on the surface it might appear this way. You gotta let go of that man. Sure, the objective may exist, but what assurance do you have that you've got it, or that your view/opinion is any better than mine?

But you're probably still firmly convinced that the most important thing in this world is that you read the "right" writers, that you're into the "right" music, you're part of the "right" slice of the Church, and you talk/live in a way that is "right" for you and everyone else in your group. Perhaps, if you get all those nailed down, then you can have a calm and a peace about your life.

And life is probably a whole lot safer that way, right? I mean heck, if like you said, the writer you highly respect (Peter Leitheart) is only read by 50 people (good intentions, noble efforts) all of whom are in your circle, you have little to fear from outside influences rattling your assumptions and challenging you. You characterized this as "a good thing."

So it's like you're creating a mini-eden really. You've got your approved way of talking/living, you're approved list of writers, and your approved way of thinking through issues. You've even got your approved spiritual leaders. And this is all "ok" because the rest of the world is, as you put it, "anti-Christian America."

My point being is that you've gotta pause and reflect for a few minutes. Consider, seriously consider, just how tiny and insignificant, perhaps even irrelevant, your particular take (and the take of your community) is in this world.

It's all just a massive indication that we outta be dang dang dang humble about our knowledge claims.

With that as a foundation, we might think that we don't have the breadth & width of what constitutes "good writing" all nailed down. We might then think, that since we don't have a perfect way of determining what good writing is or isn't, that maybe we shouldn't be so absolute in making claims like movie criticism can't be dang brilliant writing.

It may be the case that movie criticism can't be great writing, but I'd like to think that there's a journy to be taken together to discover that truth. That you and I would read a ton of film criticism, compare it with other bodies of literature & art that are assumed to be "great", and see if it too, has or does not have qualities and aspects to it which are "great" or "brilliant." It may or may not be the case...

Now, given what I've read by Ebert, in light of many many many other films critics out there, the evidence thus far has pointed to him being a competent, and occasionally to my mind, a brilliantly insightful critic of current cinema.

Now, of course I could be wrong. I don't have all the fact. I don't have all the information. And I'm dang certain that I don't have the objective standard for what good & bad writing is. So, up until the point I do, I should try to be charitable, gracious, and humble in my knowledge claims about, well, anything.

you've completely missed my point(s). i can't argue with you, because you are not arguing WITH me, you are arguing AROUND me. while this may seem like a cop-out, i don't really care, you obviously have your own opinions, and i'm not going to change your mind. this is pointless, and i'm going out of town this weekend. so you go on thinking ebert is brilliant, and i'll go on thinking he's not.

"i still maintain that mere movie "criticism" cannot qualify one as a "dang fine" writer."

God help us. I need a drink.

Josh Josh Josh. I get your points, really, I do. If it seems like I'm arguing "around" your points, it's because I'm trying to get behind the assertions, to the justification you may or may not have FOR those assertions. This has been traditionally called "critical thinking," at least, that's what I was told.

Perhaps you should consider that in general arguing is pointless. It's more or less mental masturbation. Given that, it might seem pertinent to do a change of style, and try discussing things instead of arguing about them.

Arguing is like fightening, hence the appeal for young boys coming of age. It's almost like a test of wills. Who can yell the loudest if often times what it comes down to. It can be an impressive show, but it is just that, a show and something that needs to be matured from.

At which point hopefully a desire to "discuss" will overcome/supersede the desire to fight/argue. At this point you exchange your different ideas, try to understand where the other person is coming from. You seek to dig past the brute claims to the motivation, justification, and underlying associations behind someones thoughts. And then you share.

Yes, it sounds cheesy. It may sound wimpy and unlike our Reformed tendencies to be like William Wallace. But it's a much, much more loving and Christlike way to go about interacting.

There's a great line from The Big Lebowski when The Dude says to Walter, "No Walter, you're not wrong, you're just an asshole." I think there's a great deal of truth to that. We can be right and yell and fight for it till we're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean we aren't unloving and therfore, in the final analysis where it ultimately matters, wrong.

arguing, discussing...potato (long a), potato (short a). you don't know my tone, you don't know how i'm am saying things. isn't it possible i'm not ARGUING, but DISCUSSING here, and have been all along? i use those words as synonyms, because i think there is a place for good-natured arguments. but you can't tell how i am saying things over blog...you can't tell the difference. it's funny, what you call critical thinking, i call putting words in my mouth. you've never met me. you don't know me at all, besides the stuff you read on these blogs. how can you possibly be "getting behind the assertions, to the justification you may or may not have FOR those assertions." critical thinking? pishaw. so thanks for the little pep talk, and attempt to help me along here in my arguing/discussing life, but i feel i'm doing just fine where i'm at, even though i know i have room for improvement. but if i need a little nudge, i'll let those that know and love me accomplish that task (which they often do:)).

as for the line from the big lebowski, i am well aware of it. i use it all the time. first of all, does that mean you think i'm right? and second of all, just keep in mind, it works both ways....

so just let me make this all perfectly clear, so i can be done with this. i was never asserting anything about my knowledge claims, or that i can argue better, or anything like that, in the first place. dr. leithart was just an example i pulled off the top of my head to contrast good and mediocre writers, and that is the only point i was trying to make. there were many more writers i could have used. really, the reasons and things behind my posts here were much more simple than you make out. don't give me so much credit. sure there may have been some subsequent/underlying stuff about how i don't think movie criticism can qualify as dang fine writing/make one a dang fine writer. but that's another, much longer discussion (and as for mesh, wow, you really got me with you little jab...i think you may have won the DISCUSSION by taking a shot at me instead of addressing any of the ARGUMENT at all! i'm so impressed...i really hope you got that drink). anyways, you were the one who got pissy and went off on leithart's audience, your supposed claims about my reading list, the Christ Church/blogging crowd, aruging/discussing, etc etc. perhaps it wasn't critical thinking, but that i hit too close to home for ya. as han solo would say, "musta hit pretty close to the mark to get him all riled up like that, huh kid?"

oh and just so you don't use the typical argument that i'm doing exactly what i'm accusing you of, i want you to know that this last marathon comment was as good-natured as all the others. i'm really not angry or upset about any of this. actually, i kind of want to ask you a question. i assume you went to college and graduated...were you ever in a fraternity? i only ask because i went to school where there was a big population of greeks, and you have sounded like some of the highly intelligent frat guys i have come across in this entire discussion...instead of taking on what i have to say directly, you are DISCUSSING around me. it's much easier to attack the person (now, i'm not saying attack in a highly critical or mean sense, because i don't think that's the case...but you certainly are coming after me in this) than it is to attack what i'm saying. i came into contact with this mostly with the issue of evolution, where they weren't able to give me a great, cogent argument about EVOLUTION VS. CREATION. instead we went round and round about everything else. so, here we went from roger ebert and movie criticism, all the way to anything but that. all because i mentioned the name peter leithart. wow.

I did get that drink. It was very tasty.

what was it? i prefer long island ice teas and gin and tonics myself.

A white Russian. Two, actually. (I like Long Island ice teas as well. Gin and tonic's nice with a lime.)

You know, a caucasian or two sounds really good. Too bad I have to go to work in an hour.

Josiah, you're outta your element.

like a small child who wanders into a darkened theater....

no, more like donnie. donnie who loved bowling.