Just watching a feel-good cartoon flick with the kids (Ratatouille) and there's this little gem at the end. I'd like to meet the guy who wrote that in. It sums it all up right there.
Just watching a feel-good cartoon flick with the kids (Ratatouille) and there's this little gem at the end. I'd like to meet the guy who wrote that in. It sums it all up right there.
I do this for a living, and having been on the creative side I'm always very careful to concentrate on giving positive feedback rather than negative feedback. I notice that lots of times the people in my line of work that have never actually created much can be picked out easily by the way in which they relentlessly try to tear everything down, often quite successfully.
It is almost as if they don't realize that to criticize is 100 times easier than to create and they don't give a rat's ass (pun intended) about the consequences.
HN has a lot of that, de-constructive criticism, just to tear everything down that's new to prove the critic is better than the ones that built whatever it is that is on display. And I think that's where the eye of Mordor reference comes from above, it certainly looks like that at times.
Creation, any kind of creation is hard. And to create something perfect the first time out is impossible. So constructive criticism is worth gold, demotivation is lethal.
If a work is particularly bad, I'll generally just leave it alone, unless the artist has presented something that is obviously cynical and pandering, or otherwise obviously derivative and parasitic on the work of better artists. In those cases I might get slightly snarky. I try to control this and tone it down, because even derivative works are risks, and usually somewhat naive.
If the artists' ambitious goals weren't met, and I think I understand them, I try to lay this out in as constructive a manner as I can.
I can usually only accomplish good criticism by immersion -- repeated (dozens of) listens to a record for instance, over a period of days, writing/typing out lyrics by hand, listening to all the artist's previous records, reading as many interviews as I can and just trying to get my head in the "space" of the record. At some point I get to a place of sympathy where I get into the "soul" of the record and I really have something to say, that isn't just a first impression, nor a knee-jerk reaction, but as close to deep understanding as I can get. It's really hard work, even for just a 150 word review (which is one reason I don't do it often any more).
It's rare to get that kind of perspective on a HN comment, "Show HN", or some blog post linked here. But even with the noise that's emerged over the last few years as HN has grown, I can still find the really constructive comments and learn as much as I always have. I just have to look past the frustrating drive-by comments, the throw-away accounts and the axes-to-grind. The signal-to-noise isn't what it used to be, but in general there's just as much signal, but a lot more noise to have to overlook.
Ratatouille was the first Pixar movie I saw that was an utter disappointment (no, I haven't seen them all, but I've seen a fair number of them). It was so far from "feel-good" cartoon flick for me. Much more "I'll never get that two hours of my life back" movie. Not sure how close to two hours it actually was, but it felt like about 10 hours.
Not sure what they were smoking when they made that one. I realize that tastes in movies vary widely, but I still find it hard to believe that people actually like that movie.
To each his own, I guess.