Stan Shebs wrote:
William Pietri wrote:
Some have expressed a view that we should decide that for all our readers, against the obvious wishes of the artists whose works we cover. I think that's a mistake, and a large one.
"Obvious wishes of the artists"? Not part of our mission. Good thing too, because 99% of the artists wish that we would write puff pieces encouraging readers to buy. :-)
If I were suggesting that, it would indeed be foolish.
Instead, I'm saying that the if Orson Welles thinks the best way to tell the Citizen Kane story is to create a mystery, we should not casually reveal it just because somebody thinks, as a couple of people on this list have suggested, that it's just as good either way.
If that were to somehow make it impossible to write a decent article, sure, the artist can get lost. But at least in this case, good organization of the article and some careful writing is enough to keep somebody from accidentally having the mystery revealed.
I'm not saying we should spoiler-safety on a pedestal above all else. But I am saying that some significant fraction of our readers haven't seen Citizen Kane but will, and would rather not accidentally learn the secret. If we can honor that, we should. Especially when the cost is a little extra elbow grease.
William