tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post3052529138361084101..comments2024-01-01T21:31:27.654-08:00Comments on UNCLE EDDIE'S THEORY CORNER: MIKE BARRIER'S "THE ANIMATED MAN"Eddie Fitzgeraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07729949238666234774noreply@blogger.comBlogger139125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-21573223550255315772007-05-08T14:51:00.000-07:002007-05-08T14:51:00.000-07:00What is a "useful fan"? Somebody who fundamentally...<I>What is a "useful fan"? </I><BR/><BR/>Somebody who fundamentally understands what is important about the medium he claims he loves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-73463403921707282662007-05-05T17:37:00.000-07:002007-05-05T17:37:00.000-07:00>>obstinate or conceited with regard to the merit ...>><I>obstinate or conceited with regard to the merit of one's own opinions; conceitedly dogmatic. </I><BR/><BR/>Are you saying this only applies to Barrier? I can think of several people who fit that description.<BR/><BR/>>><I>Don't you find the concept of a cartoon critic just a tad superfluous?</I><BR/><BR/>We've been over this before. Who else wrote about the history of American animation in the past? Even people like Steve Worth, John K, et. al. got some of their information from the likes of Barrier, Maltin, Beck, etc.<BR/><BR/>>><I>If he cannot function as a useful fan of the medium I don't think he can be very good at what he says he does.</I><BR/><BR/>Barrier <I>is</I> a fan of classic animated cartoons. If you actually read his books, or read the original Funnyworld, you'd know that. <BR/><BR/>What is a "useful fan"? Should Barrier help boost the industry by actively promoting cartoons like Family Guy, Shrek, The Simpsons (now a major motion picture!), Father Of The Pride, or Samurai Jack? Even if his same opinions of those cartoons are pretty low? (It wouldn't be fair, or "useful", to the current animation industry to just promote John K, now would it?)<BR/><BR/>>><I>Let's part company. Gotta run, son.</I><BR/><BR/>It's about time.J. J. Hunseckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04067327948394872768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-5934989467019841062007-05-05T13:32:00.000-07:002007-05-05T13:32:00.000-07:00opinionated:–adjective obstinate or conceited with...opinionated:<BR/><BR/>–adjective <BR/><BR/>obstinate or conceited with regard to the merit of one's own opinions; conceitedly dogmatic. <BR/><BR/>This was all about you contesting my choices in words. I think I have more than justified them. <BR/><BR/>Don't you find the concept of a cartoon critic just a tad superfluous?<BR/><BR/>Maybe he should become a cartoon paramedic.<BR/><BR/>If he cannot function as a useful fan of the medium I don't think he can be very good at what he says he does.<BR/><BR/>Let's part company. Gotta run, son.I.D.R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08204918752374858278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-46716038118537108062007-05-05T02:26:00.000-07:002007-05-05T02:26:00.000-07:00>>It was an interview.It was a debate between Barr...>><I>It was an interview.</I><BR/><BR/>It was a <B>debate</B> between Barrier and John K via email, that started because of Barrier's intitial review of APC.<BR/><BR/>>><I>A critic's job is meaningless without something to critique.</I><BR/><BR/>If it weren't for some of these same critics like Barrier and Maltin in the late 60's and early 70's, the Warner Bros. cartoons would never have gotten the praise that they deserved. They were disparaged or ignored by the more mainstream critics of the day, who preferred UPA cartoon instead.<BR/><BR/>These same critics took it upon themselves to research, interview the animators and write the history of the golden age of Hollywood cartoons. They deserve some thanks for that.<BR/><BR/>>><I>I found it hopelessly opinionated...</I><BR/><BR/>Not OPINIONATED!! Heavens forbid, since no one else around here who writes about cartoons is opinionated. Especially not certain cartoon directors with their own blogs.<BR/><BR/>>><I>If the best thing you can say is nobody reads him anyway, what's your issue?</I><BR/><BR/>That's not what I said. I stated that he had no influence in the business, not that no one read him. It's a big difference. Very few outsiders have sway over the entertainment industry.<BR/><BR/>>><I>Why you still chewing this bone?</I><BR/><BR/>Why are you still serving it up?<BR/><BR/>>><I>You with the Silly Anti-JK blog?</I><BR/><BR/><I>Anti-JK!?!</I> BLASPHEMER!! That blog is a shrine to my false idol that I worhsip in place of our Lord. You are too prideful and envious, and wish all of John's love for yourself. Be careful, such vainglory will eventually get you cast out of paradise.J. J. Hunseckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04067327948394872768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-42238800380727888662007-05-04T23:58:00.000-07:002007-05-04T23:58:00.000-07:00It was an interview. A dull, uninquisitive one, no...It was an interview. A dull, uninquisitive one, no doubt cut short by those two traits.<BR/><BR/>A critic's job is meaningless without something to critique. It's not the only way a critic's job is meaningless.<BR/><BR/>I did not find it analytical. I found it hopelessly opinionated, and plainly shortsighted, shallow and insipid. I got more words like those.<BR/><BR/>You're still coming up short on the good reason to value what he thinks.<BR/><BR/>If the best thing you can say is nobody reads him anyway, what's your issue? Why you still chewing this bone? You with the Silly Anti-JK blog?I.D.R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08204918752374858278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-28458623407721884532007-05-04T23:25:00.000-07:002007-05-04T23:25:00.000-07:00It's not Barrier's job to give a "boost to the ind...It's not Barrier's job to give a "boost to the industry". A critic's job is to write honestly and analytically about the subject he or she is reviewing, not to give a helping hand to that subject. <BR/><BR/>You exaggerate Barrier's influence with the animation industry. He has none. Even if he did love APC and gave it glowing reviews the show still would have met the same fate that it did. <BR/><BR/>If you disagree with Barrier's tastes, fine. Obviously he didn't think funny drawings and good intentions were enough to give APC a good review.J. J. Hunseckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04067327948394872768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-42557900190246450122007-05-04T20:32:00.000-07:002007-05-04T20:32:00.000-07:00I'm not implying that Barrier got the show cancell...I'm not implying that Barrier got the show cancelled. I'm stating that as far as I know he didn't do it any favors. If he can't use whatever weight he has to give a much needed boost to the industry he'd have no purpose without, what good is he to me? It would hardly have been inappropriate, and need not have compromised his integrity, whatever that could be. His taste is meaningless. There are lots of funny drawings to look at, and also on display was a genuine effort to restore the HOLLYWOOD CARTOON system. I don't think he took a lot of interest in these sorts of things, and I find it lacking. Since I FOUND A LOT TO GET EXCITED ABOUT, besides matters of taste, I have to wonder why he didn't. Actually, I don't have to wonder.<BR/><BR/>My platform is simple. MORE FUNNY CARTOONS. I don't care what is in them. I'm not that selfish, nor am I stupid enough to take potshots at the only guy pushing in the right direction, when there is something better I could do.I.D.R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08204918752374858278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-70237762568632306402007-05-04T17:33:00.000-07:002007-05-04T17:33:00.000-07:00>>The only thing it means to me is that it could n...>><I>The only thing it means to me is that it could not possibly have helped the show or funny cartoons to prosper...Whether it actually hurt the show or funny cartoons I don't know.</I><BR/><BR/>That's ridiculous. "Naked Beach Frenzy" didn't air because of controversy with advertisers over content, not because Barrier didn't like the episode. I doubt SpikeTV cancelled APC because of one critic's comments on his obscure website.J. J. Hunseckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04067327948394872768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-78335775972251590662007-05-03T01:23:00.000-07:002007-05-03T01:23:00.000-07:00So now the qualifications get more restrictive. No...<I>So now the qualifications get more restrictive. Not only should just artists write about animation, but now they should be physically attractive as well. Are you still in high school?</I><BR/><BR/>People have the face they have. If you saw mine you might want to punch it. In Barrier's case I have no illusions that I am unbaised about it. I really do not want him hurt. C'mon. <BR/><BR/>Anyone can write about anything. You should just have a good reason why you care that they did. As anonymous pointed out, Eddie's overall recommendation counts for a lot, but I am also factoring in his response to my original question. <BR/><BR/><I>Since Barrier is such an idiot you must disagree with these statements he made to John K in the debate you linked to:</I><BR/><BR/>I think what I pulled from it is more instructive than what you pulled. <BR/><BR/><I>Maybe an accomplished artist like Kricfalusi could learn to take it in stride.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm gonna guess that like me, he took it for what it was worth. The only thing it means to me is that it could not possibly have helped the show or funny cartoons to prosper, which is what I want. His ability to debate what belongs in a cartoon means little to me. It's a sidetrack that goes nowhere, just like this thread.<BR/><BR/>Whether it actually hurt the show or funny cartoons I don't know.<BR/><BR/><I>Wow. Too bad for us all you didn't write "Hollywood Cartoons", eh? </I><BR/><BR/>I don't know, I haven't read it. It's possible.I.D.R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08204918752374858278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-84374107517191106662007-05-03T00:20:00.000-07:002007-05-03T00:20:00.000-07:00>>Barrier's face does in fact make me want to punc...>><I>Barrier's face does in fact make me want to punch it. I don't know why. Can I be the only one? Can I get a show of hands?</I><BR/><BR/>So now the qualifications get more restrictive. Not only should just artists write about animation, but now they should be physically attractive as well. Are you still in high school?<BR/><BR/>>><I>I linked to an interview, which, in my honest estimation makes him look like a idiot.</I><BR/><BR/>Since Barrier is such an idiot you must disagree with these statements he made to John K in the debate you linked to:<BR/><BR/>"I was impressed by your fearlessness..."<BR/><BR/>"Like Clampett, you're not afraid to take distortion way past conventional limits, for expressive purposes, and as a result your characters always have much more presence on the screen than most cartoon characters."<BR/><BR/>"The acting in R&S is what I have liked so much..."<BR/><BR/>"All of this is not to say that your best cartoons, some entries in the original R&S series especially, aren’t important, and often tremendously enjoyable. I still think that they open up all kinds of exciting possibilities."<BR/><BR/>You should also remember that John K <I>invited</I> Barrier to view "Naked Beach Frenzy" and "Stimpy's Pregnant", and let him know what he thought of them. Then he got upset when Barrier told him his honest opinion.<BR/><BR/>Kricfalusi once stated that artists don't grow if all people do is tell them that everything they create is great. Barrier said some harsh words to Kricfalusi, but he made some good points, too. Maybe an accomplished artist like Kricfalusi could learn to take it in stride.<BR/><BR/>>><I>I tell you plainly [Barrier's] aestethic judgments...are not as good as my own...I'm in the <B>advanced</B> class.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Wow.</I> Too bad for us all <I>you</I> didn't write "Hollywood Cartoons", eh?J. J. Hunseckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04067327948394872768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-56993065746777573232007-05-02T23:48:00.000-07:002007-05-02T23:48:00.000-07:00Can we trust Eddie's recommendation in this post? ...<I>Can we trust Eddie's recommendation in this post? Is that okay with you? </I><BR/><BR/>Absolutely.<BR/><BR/><I>Is this how you "support" a man you think so highly of(apparently)? Let it go. </I><BR/><BR/>We are going to keep going over this until everyone gets it right.I.D.R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08204918752374858278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-17110628164384030372007-05-02T22:24:00.000-07:002007-05-02T22:24:00.000-07:00"That's the point. What you like doesn't matter. W..."That's the point. What you like doesn't matter. Who the fuck are you?"<BR/><BR/>I know one thing: <BR/>whoever he is, he's someone who expresses himself a lot more elegantly and coherently than you do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-83049324937957031232007-05-02T22:21:00.000-07:002007-05-02T22:21:00.000-07:00"It matters that I like Eddie so I can show him a ..."It matters that I like Eddie so I can show him a little support. It matters what he likes because I like to learn from how he thinks. Same with John K. I don't care how Barrier thinks. Why should I? He made me believe that he can't."<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Support" for Eddie? Eddie LIKED the Barrier book. LIKED it. Liked it. Liked it. Liked it. Enjoyed it. Liked it! He <I>liked</I> it! <BR/> Can we trust Eddie's recommendation in this post? Is that okay with you? Is this how you "support" a man you think so highly of(apparently)? Let it go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-90582798828248010822007-05-02T21:40:00.000-07:002007-05-02T21:40:00.000-07:00I have made no misrepresentation that I can identi...I have made no misrepresentation that I can identify.<BR/><BR/>Barrier's face does in fact make me want to punch it. I don't know why. Can I be the only one? Can I get a show of hands?<BR/><BR/>I linked to an interview, which, in my honest estimation makes him look like a idiot. I am not exaggerating this point for effect. It indicates that at least on one occasion, the occasion where I first met him, he had entirely the wrong motivations. That's my assessment, and I really should not argue with anyone who can neither concede nor refute it.<BR/><BR/>At least twice Barrier was an idiot; once when he wasted an interview on his dookie aversion, and again when he thought he looked smart for publishing it. It has value only because of John K's responses. <BR/><BR/>Good replies to this would've been maybe, "well he was having a bad day", or "he's usually not that intellectually retarded", but nobody even hinted at such possibilities. You have not even acknowleged that you comprehend what he did, so why are you reliable to me when you assess Barrier? You think I have a vendetta. If you really think I am just out to get him, that means I baited you, and you fell for it.<BR/><BR/>I made 2 hypothetical statements. <BR/><BR/>1)If what Eddie says is true, then X.<BR/><BR/>2)If what Steve says is true (and he said it twice), then Y.<BR/><BR/>That means I don't know. But I have at least one good reason to be willing to accept their versions over yours. They have made sense to me before.<BR/><BR/>I've acknowleged there could be reasons to care about Barrier, but I tell you plainly his aestethic judgments (and quite possibly his judgements in any other areas for which he may offer his generous filtration services) are not as good as my own, and any statements he bases on them do not matter to me. I have no use for them. I'm in the advanced class.<BR/><BR/><I>Also, "fun" is in the eye of the beholder. I enjoyed Barrier's book, for instance. I also enjoy some of the cartoons he dislikes. Unlike certain famous bloggers, I don't find Terrytoons, Roger Ramjet or The Flintstones to be much fun. Different strokes, I guess.</I><BR/><BR/>That's the point. What you like doesn't matter. Who the fuck are you? <BR/><BR/>Who the fuck is Barrier? Who the fuck am I? Do you care what I like?<BR/>Don't I first have to persuade you that my views matter, that I at least have the authority/veracity/credibility to say whatever I say?<BR/><BR/>It matters that I like Eddie so I can show him a little support. It matters what he likes because I like to learn from how he thinks. Same with John K. I don't care how Barrier thinks. Why should I? He made me believe that he can't.<BR/><BR/>Anyone I consider a real cartoon fan would instinctively agree that funny cartoons --as a living, breathing reality --is a far more important concept than what ANYBODY likes. But not when Barrier interviewd John K.<BR/><BR/>Everything is in the eye of the beholder, ain't it? <BR/>That's why we say stuff. May the best idea win.I.D.R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08204918752374858278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-82161405576655519182007-05-02T19:20:00.000-07:002007-05-02T19:20:00.000-07:00Actually, i.d.r.c., all of Steve's points were add...Actually, i.d.r.c., all of Steve's points were addressed in previous posts. But I'll state them again.<BR/><BR/>Barreir isn't sitting on tapes of his past interviews. He first published them in Funnyworld in the 70's, so if you like you can find back issues and read them. Some of the interviews are already available on his website for free, and I'm sure more will appear in the future. I get the feeling Barrier is an army of one, so I wouldn't expect all those interviews to appear too soon. Patience is a virtue, though.<BR/><BR/>Barrier has also lent his recordings of those earlier interviews to certain home video companies; the full Clampett interview appears on the Beany and Cecil DVD, for example. Barrier has also played clips of some of his interviews for his commentaries on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection DVDs. <BR/><BR/>Also, "fun" is in the eye of the beholder. I enjoyed Barrier's book, for instance. I also enjoy some of the cartoons he dislikes. Unlike certain famous bloggers, I don't find Terrytoons, Roger Ramjet or The Flintstones to be much fun. Different strokes, I guess.<BR/><BR/>One last thing, why make pejorative judgements and darkly insinuate ulterior motives of a person you don't know and who has not shown any reason for the suspicion you show towards them?J. J. Hunseckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04067327948394872768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-83708669736673304032007-05-02T18:09:00.000-07:002007-05-02T18:09:00.000-07:00That's why if he just published his interviews, he...<I>That's why if he just published his interviews, he would be doing a great service to animation history. I want to hear the words of the (biased) people that were actually there, instead of the (biased) opinion of someone who wasn't and has never made an animated film himself.</I><BR/><BR/>As I read, that's the most important part of the post. It's also the part that got no response. <BR/><BR/>I'm not into cartoons for the minutiae. I'm into cartoons for the fun. I'm into people who appreciate them for the fun, people who are curious or motivated about how to keep the fun going, who want to celebrate and spread understanding of the people who knew and know how to make the most fun. The rest is somebody's bullshit.<BR/><BR/>If he is sitting on tapes just so that he can be the official interpreter of the past, then he is doing no favors for the industry he feeds on.I.D.R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08204918752374858278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-51341991994303296312007-05-01T23:57:00.000-07:002007-05-01T23:57:00.000-07:00>No. Mice and Magic told it chronologically by stu...><I>No. Mice and Magic told it chronologically by studio one at a time. That kind of organization makes sense. Barrier's book and Soloman's are the ones that jump back and forth by both time and place. It's like a history smoothie.</I><BR/><BR/>How is it in chronological order in Of Mice and Magic if the book is divided by animation studios? By the time you finish reading about one studio you mentally have to jump back in time at the start of the next chapter that covers a different studio. <BR/><BR/>No matter which way you slice it, writing about all the Hollywood cartoons studios in the sound age requires a little bit of time slippage. Audiences are sophisticated enough to understand the whole picture. Most history books have to do this to a certian extent.<BR/><BR/>I think you're exaggerating the time displacement in Hollywood Cartoons. It's not like Reading Barrier's book is akin to viewing Memento or a Tarantino flick.J. J. Hunseckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04067327948394872768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-7246559056785956852007-05-01T23:44:00.000-07:002007-05-01T23:44:00.000-07:00>And that is perfectly fine because we know who is...><I>And that is perfectly fine because we know who is doing the talking. I can learn a lot that way. When Barrier takes biased opinions from several people and doesn't quote the source, we have no idea where he's coming from.</I><BR/><BR/>Certain animators have muddied the history of animation by their promotion of myths and tall tales -- like Walter Lantz's fable of how he thought of the idea for Woody Woodpecker on his honeymoon, when the character had been created by Ben Hardaway years before. It was certain animation historians who debunk those fabrications. <BR/><BR/>Most people don't know when they first read "Illusion of Life" that the authors are biased. They would have to know the real history of Disney to come to that conclusion. <BR/><BR/>Barrier quotes his sources. There's also end notes for every chapter at the back of the book.J. J. Hunseckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04067327948394872768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-51287545256928776172007-05-01T20:23:00.000-07:002007-05-01T20:23:00.000-07:00"...switching back and forth between studios and t..."...switching back and forth between studios and time periods..." Like in "Of Mice and Magic"?<BR/><BR/>No. Mice and Magic told it chronologically by studio one at a time. That kind of organization makes sense. Barrier's book and Soloman's are the ones that jump back and forth by both time and place. It's like a history smoothie.<BR/><BR/>See ya<BR/>SteveStephen Worthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01047366337202801862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-83642179999061964092007-05-01T20:19:00.000-07:002007-05-01T20:19:00.000-07:00"Frank & Ollie's version of events were clearly bi..."Frank & Ollie's version of events were clearly biased in favor of themselves and the later Disney features."<BR/><BR/>And that is perfectly fine because we know who is doing the talking. I can learn a lot that way. When Barrier takes biased opinions from several people and doesn't quote the source, we have no idea where he's coming from.<BR/><BR/>That's why if he just published his interviews, he would be doing a great service to animation history. I want to hear the words of the (biased) people that were actually there, instead of the (biased) opinion of someone who wasn't and has never made an animated film himself.<BR/><BR/>See ya<BR/>SteveStephen Worthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01047366337202801862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-89229101444954514042007-05-01T15:55:00.000-07:002007-05-01T15:55:00.000-07:00I remember seeing MacKendric, too. He was wheelcha...I remember seeing MacKendric, too. He was wheelchair bound by that time. I hadn't seen "Sweet Smell of Success" or "The Ladykillers" yet <I>so I had no Idea who he was!!</I> If only I had known then...<BR/><BR/>The ASIFA event wasn't really a panel per se since Barrier was the only author present. He also showed some 16mm cartoons from Terry and Fleischer, illustrating the early work of Tytla and Natwick, respectively.J. J. Hunseckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04067327948394872768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-31922859781263389722007-05-01T10:05:00.000-07:002007-05-01T10:05:00.000-07:00Ah, thanks, J.J."Match me, Sidney!"...sorry, I jus...Ah, thanks, J.J.<BR/><I>"Match me, Sidney!"</I>...sorry, I just had to say that. <BR/><BR/>God, how I revere that film. When old Sandy MacKendrick walked hacking down the halls at Calarts, I practically genuflected. Gee, maybe I actually <I>did</I>. I have a latent penchant for curtseying in th presence of greatness (un-ironically).<BR/><BR/>Anyway--thanks for setting me straight; boy, that Eddie gets around! I didn't recall Barrier had even been at an L.A. panel discussing "Hollywood Cartoons" or I would have tried to be there, too...wonder where the hell I was?Jenny Lerewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06668171465801333811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-88474682353591217422007-05-01T01:10:00.001-07:002007-05-01T01:10:00.001-07:00>>I rather suspect he's never met Barrier before, ...>><I>I rather suspect he's never met Barrier before, however.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually Jenny, both Eddie and I met Barrier and had our copies of "Hollywood Cartoons" signed by him at an event hosted by ASIFA years ago. <BR/><BR/>There was also a Q & A with Barrier, too. Eddie asked a question about Sibley and thought he was underrepresented in the book, if my memory is correct. I asked Barrier if he knew why Chuck Jones hated Clampett so much. Everyone laughed at my naivete.J. J. Hunseckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04067327948394872768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-51489036545585319792007-05-01T01:10:00.000-07:002007-05-01T01:10:00.000-07:00From i.d.r.c.'s first post: "Let's bash 'im! :)" F...<I>From i.d.r.c.'s first post: "Let's bash 'im! :)" </I><BR/><BR/>Fie. My own words have come back to haunt me. I have been exposed as a rogue.I.D.R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08204918752374858278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28525168.post-7637710783231145212007-05-01T01:01:00.000-07:002007-05-01T01:01:00.000-07:00>>The best non-animators who write on animation ar...>><I>The best non-animators who write on animation are the ones who stick to history and have enthusiasm for the subject. The worst are the ones who arre disorganized (switching back and forth between studios and time periods), have personal agendas to put across, don't know what they're talking about, and insist on inflating the subject with overly-scholarly prose.</I><BR/><BR/>Barrier does have enthusiasm for cartoons. He wouldn't have started Funnyworld if he didn't. His book is well researched and when he does get a fact wrong he admits it and puts the correction on his website.<BR/><BR/>"...switching back and forth between studios and time periods..." Like in "Of Mice and Magic"? For instance, read the chapter on Warner Bros. and you start out in the 30's and end in the 60's. In the next chapter, on MGM, you're back in the 30's and end in the 60's, next chapter....you get the idea.<BR/><BR/>I don't know what Barrier's personal agenda could be. Would you care to elaborate?J. J. Hunseckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04067327948394872768noreply@blogger.com