Constructive feedback from Peter

SHARE

Someone named Peter posted a comment on my very negative review of “The Informers.” This is what he wrote:

Great movie, Eric and his site blows.

While I don’t dispute the second part of Peter’s statement, I’m curious about his motives. What is his desired goal in posting such a message? I assume he hopes that other readers will have this thought process:

“Hmm, Eric has written a very negative review of this film, explaining what’s wrong with it and why. But on the other hand, Peter says the movie is great, and that Eric and his site both blow. I don’t know who to believe!”

(Or maybe the person is more grammatical and thinks “whom to believe.” I bet Peter didn’t count on that, though.)

Consider also that “The Informers” has been widely panned. Rotten Tomatoes shows 62 negative reviews and only 10 positive. Is Peter visiting all 62 of those critics’ sites and pointing out that the movie is great and that those writers and their sites blow? If not, why was I singled out? Some of those critics hated the movie even more than I did, and some of them and their sites blow even more than my site and I do. Let’s be fair here, Peter.

But then I wonder if maybe I’m misreading Peter’s remarks. The punctuation is a little ambiguous, and the grammar is off. (The third-person plural form of the verb “to blow” is “blow,” not “blows.”) After a little brainstorming, I came up with these alternatives, any of which might reflect Peter’s true intent:

Great movie! Eric and his site blow.

Great — Movie Eric and his site blow.

Great, Movie Eric! And his site blows.

Great movie, Eric! And his site blows.

Great movie? Eric and his site blow?

Great. Movie, Eric, and his site blow.

Peter, if you’re reading this, please let us know what your intentions were so that we may better understand your analysis.

SHARE