What I'm Servin' Up at the Critics Table

Criticism is kind of like a snowflake, no two opinions will be exactly the same. In my world, criticism is an opportunity to put knowledge I've accumulated to the test and a chance to really relate, capture, and perhaps even stir up your audience. To me, TV as an object of study is much different than TV as an object of leisure. TV is the leisure field is simply just that, something you kick back and enjoy after a long day at work. As an object of studious sorts however, TV must be looked at with a more critical eye, and this is where I plan on bringing acquired knowledge in order to both persuade and inform my audience, whom I plan on relating to in a very low key, accessible manner. I never want my audience to feel like they're being belittled. I want my audience to be able to pick up on what I'm saying as well as be able to dish out their own opinions in response.

As stated, my goals for doing TV criticism are twofold: put my critical knowledge to the test as well as try and be accessible to my audience as best as possible. On the latter, Brunsdon brings up a helpful term regarding audiences (in her case, it's feminists vs. normal women, here we can replace that with critic and ordinary viewer). She uses the term "transparent" to define a critic as seeing him/herself as an ordinary viewer (Brunsdon, 312). I agree with this standpoint because in order to relate with an audience, you cannot try and be above them; bringing yourself to their level, to me, is the best way to relate and get a point across.

Also, in O'Donnell's piece, she talks about being aware of the "lense" your audience is looking through as well as being mindful of different cultures as your doing your criticism (O'Donnell, 8). I find this to hold true because unless you can understand that not everyone is coming from the same direction, you might never be able to accurately portray your views to them and relate to them on such a level. On the other hand however, though a critic may try as hard as they may in order to relate to an extremely broad spectrum of viewers, it is near impossible to relate to every group, type, class (etc) of people that may encounter your criticism. So, in saying those last two statements, I think it's important that as a critic I keep a watchful eye on different cultures and how others may interpret a text differently than myself, but at the same time not be afraid to voice my opinion, even if it means not being able to relate to as broad of an audience as I had hoped.

Aside from how I/we view television, sometimes how we don't view it is just as important in shaping our criticisms. Until pointed out, I had never thought of this point before. Both Butler and O'Donnell acknowledge this point in their readings, saying that criticism is "partial", meaning one may not watch an entire series, but a single episode, leaving out useful information (O'Donnell, 6-7). Butler also points out that we interrupt TV simply by changing a channel or getting up to go to the bathroom (11-12). I think these points make TV as an object of study rather interesting. Simply viewing an episode of a TV show leaves out so much; much more than I might have assumed, perhaps making it difficult to draw conclusions and therefore making it difficult to write an informed piece of criticism. As I go on in this course however, I'm sure these things will come more easily to me. I'm sure I'll learn how to deal with the interruptions and the flow of TV and perhaps even use them to my advantage in making criticisms. Also, it may be hard for me to begin viewing television as something other than a leisure object, something I've done my whole life. Looking at television through an academic eye, as well as applying knowledge I've acquired, will definitely be a challenge compared to simply watching it for the heck of it.

Last, but certainly not least, is how I plan on acknowledging and relating to the reader. In this point, I think Corner makes a good point, similar to that of O'Donnell: different people bring many different meanings to a television program, and that is something I plan on being mindful of in my future criticisms. I think trying to appeal to a broad array of readers is key, though, as I stated above, it's near impossible to relate to EVERYONE. A goal of mine however is to try and view television through not just my own "cultural lens", but through the as the lens of others as well. In doing this, I hope to gain credibility, cooperation, and interest with my readers. Another great point, made my Gronbeck, that I think can really make or break a critic's relationship with the reader is the "because clause". Simply stating my position is informational, yes, but does nothing to engage the audience or to get them thinking. Simply inserting the word "because" after you've made a point leads you to provide reason for your decision, which is where I see the interaction happening between critic and reader. All of this stated, my main point with the reader is to try and get them engaged and interested as much as possible, I want them to feel like reading my criticisms is not only informational, but engaging and accessible as well.

So to tie everything together, criticism, to me, is all about taking what you've learned and applying it in order to better relate to your reader. Taking the opportunity to look at a text through an eye other than your own is also important, making for a much more engaging and interesting experience for all involved.