On Smarm
 

I would argue that "content-free piety" is the defining disease of our time, at least here in America. Your thoughts on On Smarm, especially as it relates to poetry reviews and the content of poetry?

Well, on a more micro level, the snark vs. smarm debate has smoldered here on Eratosphere, and burst into prodigious flame periodically, pretty much as long as there's been an Eratosphere.

Both snark and smarm are more about the critic ("See how clever I am" or "See how nice I am") than they are about the material under critique. They are both, therefore, inherently egotistical.

When I read a review of a book or movie, I'm not interested in admiring the critic's cleverness or niceness. I'm just trying to figure out whether I'm likely to enjoy that book or movie.

Yes, I know that these sorts of judgments are always subjective, so the critic's background and biases are relevant to some extent, but mainly I want the critic to get his or her ego out of the way and present as honest and fair an assessment as possible, please. Is that too much to ask?

in that case
 

in that case you'll like these lists of top ten movies in various genres by the guardian. i have plenty of quibbles: how is "silence of the lambs" not on the adaptation list? why is jerry maguire on the sports list (it's a romance disguised as a sports movie) and "brian's song" and "bang the drum slowly" not? where is "wall-e" on the animated list? and it's not fair, i think, that some movies are on multiple lists. still, very thought-provoking. i was surprised that i'd seen all of the movies on only two lists (sci-fi, comedy) and 9 of 10 on two others (family, horror). i guess i need to see more french and russian movies.


http://www.theguardian.com/film/series/top-10-films

But Julie, you can't get your ego out of the way. No criticism can be objective because there are no rules that we can all agree are rules. Politics is rather different. We should consider the snarky Jeremy Paxman's question. 'Why is this lying bastard lying to me?' But artists tell no lies because they tell no truth. I hate all conceptual art. I want to set fire to it and punch the artist. But that's just me. And you too, I hope. But it can only be a hope because we are in the realm of opinion.

Re films, we might consider films that have been made from bad books, like 'The Silence of the Lambs' or the Swedish 'Let the Right One In'. It is very much more difficult, I think, to make a good film of a good book.

On behalf of Snarks everywhere, I wish to protest at the disparaging remarks that have been made about us on this thread. We Snarks are actually very nice. Unless, of course, we're Boojums.

Perhaps I'm Doña Quixote, but I still think it's possible for critics to shine a spotlight on the strengths and weaknesses of the material they're critiquing, without letting their egos intrude into that spotlight overmuch.

Subjective opinions are, unavoidably, subjective, which is why it's important to know something about the background and biases of the critic. But I still say that if a critic goes out of his or her way to find either warm-and-fuzzy or cold-and-prickly things to say about reviewed material, then that review is more about the impression the critic wants to make than it is about the reviewed material.

If you insist that snark and smarm are the only two choices, then I'm absolutely pro-snark. Smarm is standard-lowering stuff that is insidiously harmful to the creative community as a whole. Unmerited praise is far more poisonous than unmerited invective.

Well, there was David Lean's "Great Expectations" ...

good films bad books
 

Setting aside that "Silence of the Lambs" is an amazing book that birthed a thousand imitators and a popular obsession with serial killers and FBI profilers that continues to this day, I'd open the list of good films from bad books with Blade Runner and The Godfather.

I'm not counting books that were fantastic reads, then the movie made them even better, such as Jurassic Park (whose movie makes the park developer sympathetic instead of a corporate baddie and leaves the pterodactyls for JP3).

a confession
 

A few years ago, to keep up with what two of my semi-literate nieces were reading (at least they were reading something at last!), I actually staggered through a couple of the Twilight novels. They were as dreadful as can be. One of the nieces insisted on "treating" me to one of the movies. I went in great dread, wondering what I could possibly truthfully say on the way home yet avoid hurting her feelings. Imagine my relief upon discovering that the film was better than the book--which should indicate how truly horrid the book was.

On a much higher plane, what she was reading in high school English, TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, is an example of a good book that inspired a good movie.

Yes, Brian, you're right. It was good. But the book is better. But that will always be true of any Dickens adaptation so I'm being curmudgeonly. Bad films from the classics abound. Charlotte Bronte (George C Scott as Rochester), Emily Bronte, Jane Austen (the naked D'arcy is something we could all do without). There was a Russian adaptation of 'War and Peace' in about 24 chunks that wasn't bad. Bladerunner's based on something by Philip K Dick, is it not? Philip K Dick is the greatest American writer since I don't know when.

'The Big Sleep' is a good film from a good book. Or did I say that?