Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lake
Linguini represented the worst of the other 98%. Anywho, that's what I took from it, and how I drew up the comparison.  |
I figured you were referencing Linguini, my take would be that Linguini
didn't cook well
at that moment in his own story, not that he
couldn't cook well.
Even the ghost of linguini's dad told the rat not to scoff at the kid, repeating the
everyone can cook line. I thought it was a strange movie to reference as supporting your point, because I think the real meat of that story would probably translate to this thread with the axiom that everyone
can write well, not withstanding slush pile evidence to contrary. Just because what the 98-99% put down is actually drivel doesn't mean the authors of that drivel didn't have the capacity to write, just that they didn't exercise it.
Ratatouille was such fantastic narrative (my favorite of Pixar's many diamonds), and (IMO) the
everyone can cook line wasn't incidental to it or disproven within its own story. In the end, what broke the hard-nosed critic -- who would have similar opinions of the very nature of the 98% -- was cooking that called to memory a meal made not by one of the greats, but by another 'everyone': his mom. That the cook who reminded him of that was a rat was almost (
almost) beside the point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steven Lake
But as was evidenced by the movie, you may be able to cook, but that doesn't mean you can cook well.
...
The kitchen full of chefs was the 2% of great writers who are picked out of the slush piles of publishing houses. The rat was the magical individual from among that group who produces the next great classic/blockbuster. Linguini represented the worst of the other 98%.
|
This seems more like a judgement on the nature of the people (I apologize in advance if that meaning was not what you intended), than just on the quality of most submissions (or to say it another way): Some people are great writers and write great things while others are slush pile writers so they write slush pile things. True or not, citing the point to Ratatouille seems almost sacrilege (Yes, I do
really like that movie
). The great ghosted chef and his rat pupil wouldn't have abided such commentary, though I'm sure he would have recognized most cooking was low quality, the problem he would see wasn't in whether you were innately a great cook, but whether you were a great cook
yet.
I think he would say, in fact, everyone can (has the capacity to) cook
well; it's not beyond their ability, some just need a little help. That doesn't mean everyone would have their own 5 star restaurant, only that they could excel in the art and use cooking where they are to brighten the life they have (the rat's life was enriched by it long before he got to the restaurant). Translated to this thread, while the masses couldn't compete with Clancy, they have their own story to tell, and if content to tell that without the accolades and wealth of mass market success and were willing to patiently learn and utilize the tools of storytelling, they could in fact be great writers and write well. Not that writing is natural to all, but that both story telling and the skills needed to do it are well within the grasp of even the commoner.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go contemplate the extent of the meaninglessness of my own life that would drive me to make such a thorough exposition of the credo of a computer animated cooking rat and his otherworldly mentor.
