[WikiEN-l] fancruft

[geni]

On 7/22/06, Michael Hopcroft <michael at mphpress.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> >> There is also a logical contraction: you seem to be asking people to
> >> write articles on movies and TV shows they HAVE NOT SEEN, which of
> >> course is as much a total absurdity as asking a literary scholar to
> >> write a thesis on novels and plays he has never himself read, based
> >> solely on previously-existing external scholarship. The idea is
> >> unrealistic nearly to the point of psychotic detachment.
> >>
> >
> > Really? It would be quite posible for me to write articles on canals
> > I've never seen nor ever will see (since they are now under a city or
> > the like).
> >
> >
> It may be possible, but in the case of literary criticism what would be
> the point if the works themselves are accessible?
>

That is somewhat different from the original assertion which would
have suggested that [[Q document]] was imposible to write.

> It would, of course, be necessary in the case of LOST works of which
> there are no extant copies. But if the book, or the play, or the film is
> still extant, not to mention easily obtainable,  there is no reason for
> a scholar not to refer to it. And what would he gain from REFUSING to do so?

Since we are not meant to be reporting on the film it self rather
people's responces to it and how they recored it (NPOV) it could
provide useful self disserplin.

>  How can one gain a useful interpretation of a film he has not seen?


You are not meant to.


-- 
geni