On Jun 1, 2009, at 5:31 AM, Rob MacKillop wrote: > The guy is a native-English speaker, so has no excuse, and, no, I have > no idea what he is talking about. Still, a review's a review!
It has the virtue of being obviously obscure; you're not deluded by apparently clear writing into thinking it actually says anything worth knowing. I've been involved in writing and editing reviews of one sort or another (I'm doing both between reading and writing these posts) and I've seen lots of reviews that appear to be using plain English but consist entirely of throat-clearing, introductions of topics that aren't pursued, and characterizations that are meaningful only to the writer; at the end, there's no actual meaning. Here's a famous bit of critical drivel, from a 1979 review of Queen's Jazz album by a rock critic with a big reputation. The prose is fine, but when you've read it, try to relate it something in the real world. Does "fascist rock band" actually mean something? Or is the critic just suffering the effects of keen distaste mixed with drugs? > Whatever its claims, Queen isn't here just to entertain. This group > has come to make it clear exactly who is superior and who is > inferior. Its anthem, "We Will Rock You," is a marching order: you > will not rock us, we will rock you. Indeed, Queen may be the first > truly fascist rock band. The whole thing makes me wonder why anyone > would indulge these creeps and their polluting ideas. > > For context, you can read the whole rant at: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/queen/albums/album/195592/review/ 5942056 -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
