Nathan_Pensky
- 32 comments
- 35 likes given
- 9 likes received
Bio not provided
@jameswilliamiii Thanks for that. We've corrected the story.
So thrilled about this. Cant even tell you.
@secretmirth Thank you! Should be fixed now.
This is amazing.
@PaulCarr You should change the name of this series to "Why Isn't This J'accuse!"
@sarahlacy Haha, NEVER!
RE: the chivalry discussion. As a rule, I love chivalry -- big fan of Medieval-themed restaurants, for instance. But most of the genteel behaviors extended toward women, which still persist into modern times, don't have any specific gender-designation, do they? One can offer one's seat up to a man, if he looks tired, right? Rather than eliminating courtesy, why not just make it applicable to everyone?
@godofbiscuits Ah well, I disagree but thanks for reading.
@godofbiscuits Nice to meet you, Jeff. The phrase "sources close to ______" and inserting oneself into a story are fairly common in journalism these days, but I hear you.
@godofbiscuits Where have I done that?
@godofbiscuits No, I think it's relevant to the argument that you're accusing someone of stating mistruths while yourself hiding behind a veil of anonymity.
@godofbiscuits At least she has a name, "godofbiscuits."
@mchasewalker Don't sub-comment me. You did, in fact, compare "The Social Network" to "The English Patient." I'm looking at that comparison right now. Also, how "great" a writer is has nothing to do with being on the right side of an argument, or how a moral he or she is. There are plenty of great artists and journalists who were deplorable human beings. There were also a lot of them on the wrong side of very important arguments. As far as who will be talking about whom in the future, there is no surer way to secure one's legacy than to behave deplorably. History is full of them.
Farhad wouldn't have to be the excellent writer he is to be right about whether Aaron Sorkin is a moral human being. In fact, I'm arguing that he's wrong about Sorkin, but that he's still an excellent writer.
Why is everything you say put so nastily? Can't you argue something without insulting those who disagree with you?
@paulcarr @mchasewalker And I guess, in a movie, those ten-foot high letters should be implied where the message "This is fact" isn't used. In a movie, the default setting should be fantasy, as far as I can see. I absolutely understand your point, and in some ways it's a very humanist, kind point to make. I just think silly people are catered to enough in our culture. I mean, if the movie-going public has such a tenuous grasp on reality, one wonders whether anyone should be making any movies at all, lest someone believe that vampires are real and starts staking anyone with a slightly pale complexion.
@paulcarr @mchasewalker Again, I don't agree the guy comparing 'The English Patient' with 'The Social Network,' but it's telling that your distinction between 'The Social Network' being totally irresponsible and it being a work of art rests upon such a fine point as whether real names are used. Isn't there a place, where a movie can say "This is a fictional story," and where news journalists can say, "Well, in fact that's not what happened," without either of them being "immoral"?
@paulcarr @mchasewalker But good God, in no way was I trying to stand behind the original comment Paul is responding to here. Because, wow. Where to begin? Farhad's perspective assumes that story-tellers have a responsibility to represent real, living people with a certain level of veracity to those who might not understand that said writers create works of fiction. I disagree with that position, because I think that story-tellers first obligation is to create good art, however they choose, and not worry about how people might misconstrue their work.
So MChaseWalker, I'm wondering why you're judging Farhad to be a lesser writer than Aaron Sorkin, or whether you take into account that Farhad is a (highly skilled, highly successful) journalist, while Aaron Sorkin is a screenwriter? Or do you get that comparing them as "writers" strikes at the heart of this argument, being a misunderstanding of the difference between stylized fiction and news reportage? Just to say that, while I might fall on the same side of this particular argument with you, I don't "agree" with you at all.
@paulcarr I guess, if all that is true, the question becomes whether a filmmaker, or any story-teller, should cater their work to those who misread it.
Hurrayyyyy!
@sarahlacy Yeah, beyond the question of target audiences, I don't think "TIm and Eric" are going out of their way to be strange. I think they just have different ideas about humor. By the same token, I don't defend them as a part of an argument about audiences, rather they illustrate that argument. Comedians who think differently than the mainstream are oftentimes very good, maybe even moreso than the norm. And a lot of the time, those comedians who were initially beloved within the community, and nowhere else, go on to become huge. Louis C.K. is a great example of this, someone who was called "the comedian's comedian" for years, and then who broke into the mainstream in a big way, without compromising his original vision. People now say his material changed or got better; I say the mainstream moved, he didn't. (Then again, I also love "Sports Night"/"West Wing," etc. Please don't fire me!)