The Haters

The college sports world hit the new again tonight when a college hoops prospect decided he was going to choose his college this week.  The schools he'd narrowed his choices down to? UNLV and Oregon.

No big deal, right?

(Especially for readers of this blog.  Get to it, DaveyPants.)

Well, on Twitter it was a big deal.  Fans of the current champion Kentucky Wildcats assaulted the prospect's Twitter account.  "F*ck you!" They @replied him.  "I only hope the worst for you."  It was ugly.  And I only chose the easiest tweets to post.



But (aha, here comes the point), behavior like this is widespread across the internet. Look at any Amazon page and read some of the bad reviews.  While they are rarely curse laden, because Amazon screens, some are filled with hatred toward the author.  Anonymous comments on blogs lash out at people they don't agree with.  Look at any news article or blog post on teachers.  These posts are filled with thoughtlessness.  Cruelty. 

What do these people get out of this?  Hiding behind their internet screen names, they can say what they want and expect to be consequence free.  And most of these people aren't teens being teens.  They are mature adults who hold good jobs.

It's all about two things.  Power and entitlement.

Power:  People get a kick out of being able to say what they want directly to someone.  And when their view of that person or that person's work is negative, it becomes even easier.  It is very difficult to compliment someone.  A lot easier to bash and let every emotion they feel out toward that person.  Feels good, doesn't it?

Entitlement:  Now that the internet exists, people feel they deserve everything.  I spent 99 cents on this book.  I spent 9.99 on this book.  I deserve everything I buy to be GOOD.  I should agree with everything someone says.  My team should have the best players on the planet EVERY YEAR.

People need to think.  You wouldn't say this stuff if the author was sitting right next to you.  If the 18 year old kid making one of the biggest decisions of his life was standing in front of you.

So, don't do it now.

Even if you're on the 'net, hiding behind a fake name, be a human.

HAAAYYYY-TERRRR

By Dave White


I'm a big fan of Rutgers basketball. I'm an alumni, I have season tickets, and I love college basketball. Three years ago, RU hired a coach (Fred Hill) with local ties, a lot of good will going forth, and a great ability to recruit. In those 3 years he hasn't won a lick. Players transfer in and out, assistant coaches are hired and shuffled around. The team does not win. Fans are irate and want Hill out of town. Academic scores on the team have gone up. Players who once got away with anything are now disciplined. Tuesday a player was kicked off the team for a violation of rules. Somehow, to these fans, the player who violated the rule is not in the wrong. Hill is. Because he doesn't win.

It's pile on time now.

I am also a fan of Spider-man. A year and a half ago, Marvel Comics completely revamped the Spider-man universe, separating him from his wife of 20 (real life) years through magic. As if it never happened. Since then, the Spidey series has gotten strong in terms of storytelling. There are a ton of mysteries in the series that are extremely compelling. Does that matter to the fans of the marriage? No, they're irate. If they're not reading about a married Spider-man, they're not reading Spider-man. They'll complain about every flaw in the story. They'll complain how each story could still be told with the marriage. Even if it's a good story, they'll admit they enjoyed it, but at the same time it sucked because Spider-man wasn't married.

It's pile on time now.

What does this have to do with crime fiction?

A lot and a little, I suppose. There are a lot of bad reviews out there. More than good reviews. That's fine, if the reviews are critical and give reasons. But a lot of bad reviews just give reason for people to spit venom. It is so easy to hate.

Why?

Is it because we don't view coaches, writers, directors, or any kind of entertainers as real people?

Or is it because it's always easier to verbalize our dislike? I can come up with 1,000 reasons not to like something. Specific reasons. But it's hard for me to back up why I like something.

I enjoy a lot of things, but often when I do I can only spout out cliches. Edge of my seat. Page turner. But when I don't like something...

Take MAD MEN for instance. When the series premiered, I watched the first episode and hated it. I thought it was too self-aware. There were too many jokes about being in the sixties: whether it was pregnant women smoking, kids playing with plastic dust covers over their face, or the worst one of all... "It's not like we have some machine that will copy for us." It was easy to point out reason when I disliked it.

It wasn't until I picked up the DVDs later on when I became intrigued. I gave the show three episodes and it really started to grow on me. I became intrigued in the characters. I wanted to know more about them. Don Draper was a mystery to me. And I wanted to solve that mystery.

But I could really put the reasons I started to like the show into words. I knew I liked it... I knew I kept watching, but if someone were to ask me why, I wouldn't really be able to say why.

Then I discovered Alan Sepinwall's blog. He writes for the NEWARK STAR LEDGER. And his thoughts on Mad Men were compelling. He was being specific as to why he liked it. Why the show was brilliant. He put into words what I wanted to say about the show.

That's what a good critic does.

Anyone can say why they hate something. Anyone can pile on the hate when things go bad.

A good critic can acknowledge the bad. (Sepinwall, for instance, talks a lot about the jokes I hated.)

A good critic can acknowledge that, and still show you why there's good in what you're watching or reading.