Originally Posted by
Rick Hendricks
Your "opinions" are many.
OK You win. Let’s put what you say into practice on you. This is how you sound.
I despise that you don’t like Ayn Rand. Therefore, you cannot write. In fact, you are a lousy writer. I don’t like the politics you imply, therefore you cannot write.
Hmmm, does your argument hold water now that it’s applied to you?
By your own words, “Given that Mr Locke is dead (and has been for some time) it's a fairly pointless argument.” Therefore, you cannot use de Man; he is dead. So are the others.
Papa Hemingway had an unfavorable view of male homosexuals. Does that mean he couldn’t write? Oh, sorry, he’s dead too.
Let’s speak of a living person. WDC, who is still alive, is also a producer, and screenwriter who worked extensively with Robert Altman, on “Mash,” ring any bells? See the ending credits at the end of Mash, if you can get a copy. He writes, produces, and teaches. Here are some of his published credits below. Now this applies to “real life” not theory; there is a difference. Mash was a worldwide phenomenon for 11 years after the original movie; millions and millions of people viewed it. You don’t think that had a significant impact?
To say people changed their opinion about a person being a good writer because they discovered this person’s political leanings means they thought this person (I cannot name if they are dead; your rule) was a good writer. Then a “subjective decision” out of a personal bias was made about this nameless person. Does this mean the person cannot write? Of course, it doesn’t and you know that. However, it may mean they don’t like the ideology, and will punish this unnamed person, by saying he/she is a bad writer. This is a totally, subjective view, and that is where you started, with the subjective, “I despise.”
A good critic is not subjective.