Quote:
Well, I've never been particularly enamored of the whole gangster genre. There are a few entries in it that I do enjoy (Miller's Crossing comes to mind), but if you're relying on the gangster part to sell me on it, you're fighting a losing battle.


This is something I'll never understand about people, and it seems endemic in America: I don't like something, therefore it sucks, and I know it sucks because I don't like anything that's similar.

I can understand not liking the Sopranos. I can understand not liking the gangster genre. But when you put the two together, what can anyone take away from the comment? It's like me saying "I don't like modern jazz, and doesn't it all really suck?"

Basically, what I've done there is say "I don't like modern jazz", but then attempted to validate my view by saying it's because it sucks. Does anyone but me see the flaw in logic there? Who am I to say whether modern jazz all sucks if I simply don't like modern jazz? If I were to say "Boy, I love most modern jazz, but I find artist X to be trite and formulaic" then we would have something. I am, in this case, critiquing the artist fairly; since I generally enjoy the genre, but I don't enjoy this offering.

No offense intended, and I'm actually very interested in hearing what people (especially Bitt) have to say on this, but it just strikes me as similar to a person who doesn't like death metal reviewing the new Lamb of God album: what's the point?
_________________________
Dave