If you just want the background, all you need to do is not read the summary. But if you are looking for a critical discussion, that would presuppose knowledge of the plot.
On 6/21/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I thought the whole point of Citizen Kane was that the meaning of "Rosebud" has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. It could have been anything and the movie would have been exactly the same. But maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about.
"It seems to me that we can write a perfectly good encyclopedia while still respecting the both the artist's intent and the experience of readers." Frankly, I disagree. If you want to experience a movie the way the author intended it to be experienced for the first time, *don't read an article on the story beforehand*. To write a "perfectly good encyclopedia" article about Citizen Kane, or even about the movie's impact on society, without first making sure the reader knows the ending, is ridiculous.
Ridiculous? But we have an article that does that very well. Have you read it? There's little chance that somebody will accidentally read the bits that would give much away, even when reading the article for other info. The plot section is clearly marked and the first sentence makes clear that there's a mystery. The secret is only revealed in the middle of the fourth paragraph of the synopsis, so anybody who wants to avoid knowing the secret can do so.
There are plenty of films I want to know something about before I see them. For something like Citizen Kane, it's worth studying the impact of the film and the historical context. Why wouldn't I turn to Wikipedia for that? And why wouldn't Wikipedia honor my desire to learn the bits I want to know without spoiling a part of the experience that is precious to me, especially if that's easily done with a bit of good writing?
William
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l