On 'Critical Condition' and Angry White Guy Don Hall

Timeout Chicago's "Blog Critics: Critical Condition" (http://chicago.timeout.com/articles/features/25801/critical-condition)
Don Hall: An Angry White Guy" (http://donhall.blogspot.com/) Blog post about mid-life crisis

Don Hall is: some nonprint, nonprofessional, nonedited, nonpaid, nontrained writer.

He thinks reviewing is a compulsive disease with both mental and physical symptoms. When Kris Vire asks who would still review if they stopped getting paid for it, everyone said of course they would. Don Hall said this, “Which indicates that for all the bitching about money, money has little to do with this thing we do.”

They even give that to him as the last word, granting his sentiments the professional seal of approval. The professionals like the image Hall paints of an impassioned writer working diligently for a noble cause, untainted by economics. But though they all agree, their answers are still different based on the context in which they are given. Hall is responding to Anne Holub who said, “Definitely. Of course, I don’t get paid now sooo…” Three “o”’s and the dreaded ellipses—no wonder she isn’t getting paid.

The point still stands, Hall and Holub are not getting paid yet they are doing it. And maybe what’s most important is that they are doing it at a level above not only the user submissions and forum posts, but also above their blogging peers. Out of the World Wide Sea, Timeout selected these two fish, fresh and fat. The professionals are probably telling the truth. They would probably still do it even if they weren’t paid. But how would they still do it? Could they possibly maintain the rigorous standards they impose on themselves now? Where would the research, the quality of writing, the editing and authority all go? Some would likely end up like Hall and Holub, but others could just as easily end up like the basement-dwelling mouth breathers who populate the net. My point is that these professionals haven’t been tested whereas Hall has—and he passed.

Still, reviewing is nothing courageous to Hall. It is just a “stubborn need to express our opinion.” He thinks it can be courageous to speak truth to power, and he shares a populist distrust of “megacorporations” with his internet comrades.

But the key difference between Hall and the rest of the panel is that he is the only one who believes his opinion are true and that a good critic renders a correct verdict. He says you only need to be “as sharp and precise as what you are slamming”—a funny way of disagreeing that negative reviews should be restrained. Instead he believes readers form a report with critics whom share their personal opinion. He calls critics he disagrees with hacks. He is like George W. Bush, unable to separate politics and religion. To him, it wouldn’t be his opinion unless he was 100% sure it was true. Yet he does say that “in order to appropriately criticize, a dollop of self-awareness is necessary-knowing your own prejudices, etc.” So while his Id may be wrong, his Ego won’t be if he has his Superego trained.

The professionals stress the need for education and editing, but don’t make the connection to correctness. It begs the question of why all that education is necessary. Hall focuses on passion, and says education will naturally follow. And in general, he seems to be a very passionate person. He is the only quoter on the panel, meaning he will restate a line another person said that he enjoyed. He’s also an a negative asshole mostly. And his website is a blog with some reviews—not the other way around. He has no shame, and no restraint. He will rant and write unfocused, meandering, enjoyable, and probably accurate reviews—when he isn’t busy telling us about his cats or failed marriages.