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