From: owner-precious-things-digest@smoe.org (precious-things-digest) To: precious-things-digest@smoe.org Subject: precious-things-digest V9 #128 Reply-To: precious-things@smoe.org Sender: owner-precious-things-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-precious-things-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "precious-things-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. precious-things-digest Thursday, December 16 2004 Volume 09 : Number 128 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Old Libel Tori "Review" [Nadyne Mielke ] Re: precious-things-digest V9 #127 [Dana Clark ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:36:31 -0800 From: Nadyne Mielke Subject: Re: Old Libel Tori "Review" At 02:09 PM 12/14/2004, e m wrote: >I was reminded about this on one of the boards today. >I brought this here a while ago, but I want to bring >it up again. Why? It's more than two years old. It's a bad review. Tori's had more than one of them in her time, and I'm quite sure that she's able to get past some guy who (in my ever-humble opinion) simply missed the point of the album. You're not going to change the guy's mind, and you're certainly not going to get the newspaper to do anything about a music review (that's two years old!) that you don't like. /nm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:04:33 -0800 From: Dana Clark Subject: Re: precious-things-digest V9 #127 - --On Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:20 AM -0500 precious-things-digest wrote: > > precious-things-digest Wednesday, December 15 2004 Volume 09 : > Number 127 > > > > Today's Subjects: > ----------------- > Old Libel Tori "Review" [e m > ] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:09:17 -0800 (PST) > From: e m > Subject: Old Libel Tori "Review" > > Hi Everyone, > > I was reminded about this on one of the boards today. > I brought this here a while ago, but I want to bring > it up again. > > This "review" is so awful in so many ways. I just > sent the press another email, which I will include > following the article. But I want to urge you all to > considering sending them a word or two. > > I just strongly feel this was extremely libel & in > horrible taste & that something should be done. > Please write if you agree & have the time. > > - -Ellen Hello Ellen, and everyone - this is the first, and probably the last, time i've posted to this list... Normally it's enjoyable to lurk and read the news and whatnot and ponder some of the questions, but seriously, I finally got to the point where I had to put my 2 cents in, because I think that we're all a little oversensitive here when it comes to a certain beautiful one by the name of Tori. The Oxford English Dictionary defines libel as "Any published statement damaging to the reputation of a person. In wider sense, any writing of a treasonable, seditious, or immoral kind. Also, the act or crime of publishing such a statement or writing." Here is my problem - that article, though horribly negative and though it assumes way too much without really deeply considering Tori's lyrics, is NOT what one would consider libel. It is in no way damaging to her reputation whatsoever. The truth is, this "review" is like any other "review" - it is the personal opinion of the reviewer. If he believes that Tori's music is reminiscent of sophomore creative writing class, that is his opinion. If he is missing the political/personal connection in Scarlet's Walk, thinking she somehow implies that America might have been "asking for it," that is how he interprets the lyrics (and really, especially when it comes to Tori, you can't do much other than interpret... there is no right answer). But to imply that his opinion or his misinterpretation are "libel" is really a misuse of the word libel. His opinion in no way damages her reputation; as this group has proven, those who like Tori will find it appalling and wrong, and those who don't like Tori aren't changing their opinions based on this article. His misinterpretation of her lyrics, too, are not going to affect her reputation: those of us who are more close to Tori's lyrics know he's really seriously misinterpreting, and those who don't like Tori don't care. Point being, before you get your panties in a bunch about a negative review of Tori, perhaps you should find a better outlet for your frustrations that repeatedly emailing the editorial board at NY Press for years after the fact, as I'm sure they too know the definition of libel. Dana... a loyal Tori fan who recognizes that not everyone loooooves Tori like we do... ------------------------------ End of precious-things-digest V9 #128 *************************************