even Variety thinks critics should be objective (and other adventures in social networking)

by MaryAnn Johanson
no comments yet

What my followers on Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ saw today:
• Unfortunately, I’ve come to expect that negative reviews will garner accusations that critics are not objective enough. But I expect that from fanboys, not from Variety. (Also weird and kinda disturbing: The Variety writer thinks it’s “schizophrenic” for the NY Times to highlight a review that isn’t wholly positive; and that critics should somehow temper negative reviews of popular genres in order to avoid being abused by fanboys. Abuse by fanboys is apparently a-okay.) Why Samuel Jackson Had a Point Re: A.O. Scott

• Cool! Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales 2012 – a multimedia pilgrimage

• Whatever happens in my life, I’m unlikely to marry a lady. But these are cool. I will marry a star wars lady and these will be our rings [image]

• The reality-deniers are getting really desperate… Heartland Institute compares belief in global warming to mass murder

share and enjoy
               
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll, anti-abuse measure. If your comment is not spam, trollish, or abusive, it will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately. (Further comments may still be deleted if spammy, trollish, or abusive, and continued such behavior will get your account deleted and banned.)
If you’re logged in here to comment via Facebook and you’re having problems, please see this post.
PLEASE NOTE: The many many Disqus comments that were missing have mostly been restored! I continue to work with Disqus to resolve the lingering issues and will update you asap.
subscribe
notify of
0 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments