Value judgments are the first feature of social life

[koganbot]

Tom writes over on his Blue Lines tumblr:

One of the things I like most about writing for Pitchfork is that with Poptimist it lets me be a bit more subtle and unopinionated in my writing, which is how I like to do things anyway.

In the comments I challenge his contention about how he likes to do things:

Well, I notice that orgafun on Poptimists and Freaky Trigger is centered around like versus dislike, or better versus worse. Convos can arise from that beginning, but like/dislike is the game, which is the first hook that makes it fun, even if there's better fun when a good discussion develops as well. As Frith and I were saying back in the day, value judgments are the first feature of the social life around music. I often find this frustrating; I'm someone who wants to break down the wall between hallway and classroom, but giving priority to opinion tends to suppress the classroom altogether. Few people seem to know how to get far beyond their opinion. But suppressing opinion - while it often might be a good strategy in situation G or H, say, or even be a good rhetorical strategy for the news pages on a paper - is how the classroom made itself feel not like life in the first place, so suppression is not a long-term solution.

Comments

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced your challenge works. Poptimist orgafun may indeed get its energies from like versus dislike, but that doesn't mean it arises from the opinions of the person designing and presenting the orgafun: if it's well designed, it arises from the energetic clash of those taking part. Isn;t what Tom's saying that he enjoys writing pieces which operate to design and presewnt the orgafun, and allow the "players" -- ie his readers -- to explore the energy of their own likes and dislikes, the primary social game of evaluation, without necessarily first testing them against his? (Which are kept understated so as not to skew the game?)

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

I could not have expressed it more elegantly!

Also it's a venue and role thing - if Pitchfork said "Tom! Design us a social game around music!" I would approach it quite differently I'm sure. And in the Guardian column I'm trying really hard to BE more opinionated now because the 700-word limit (which is a monstrous luxury itself in this day and age) seems to work better that way. But because I have a very stretchy wordcount on Poptimist and a very open brief it allows me to wander around a subject a bit more.

[koganbot]

Well no, 'cause (1) writing a column isn't like designing a board, and (2) Tom's one of the players on poptimists and on Freaky Trigger, not just the designer. And even if the analogy between his column-writing and his designing holds, he's also a "player" in relation to his column; he does explore his own likes and dislikes all over the place. I'd say a better analogy would be between his column and the asking of a rather lengthy question on ilX: the lengthy question might be more or less opinionated depending on the asker but also on how opinionated the asker feels on that subject and what the asker wants to know. Except with Tom's column he'll not get to see most of the "answers."

I don't think there's a definite connection between having a column and being subtle and unopinionated, or between being subtle and being unopinionated, for that matter. You can be subtle and unopinionated in a review, and though some places require you to attach numbers, but you can still be pro forma with the opinion. And conversely you can be raging fire and still subtle (something I learned from the Rolling Stones).

By the way, I have no trouble with Tom's desire to be subtle and unopinionated in a column. What he said is at least a family relation to what I had in mind back in March '07 in my pitch to Scott Dickensheets for my Rules Of The Game column, when I told Scott that my prose was tired of being sexy. But I wouldn't have added the phrase, "which is how I like to do things anyway." There isn't one way I like to do things, and and there isn't only one way Tom likes to do things. (And that's what he's saying himself in his comment about roles.)

When I designed my xeroxed message board back in 1987, Why Music Sucks, it did arise from the opinions of the guy designing the fun, and from his ideas, but I also played multiple roles, not just trying to draw attention to other people's opinions but trying to get those people to stretch their opinions into analyses (which could be opinionated or not). So when replying to people I held my fire somewhat, since it was my board and I could give myself the last word whenever I wanted, but I didn't want to set people up and knock them down. Didn't seem fair, but also didn't seem a good way to bring them back.

(Of course the point of reprinting my comment wasn't really to challenge Tom's opinion of his nonopinionatedness so much as to put forth my and Frith's ideas about the centrality of value judgments, in case there's a newbie who hasn't seen the idea or an oldbie who has something to add.)

[koganbot]

"and though some places require you to attach numbers, but you can still be pro forma with the opinion"