--- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- bob_brigante wrote: > > > > > File : /File0001.jpg > > > Uploaded by : bob_brigante > > > Description : WSJ review of Lynch book, film > > > > > > You can access this file at the URL: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/files/File0001.jpg > > > > > I changed the file name to: WSJ on Lynch (last file on page) -- > > mostly negative review of Lynch's book, movie >
> What are other critics saying about Lynch's book > and movie? I used to read the Wall Street Journal > in the 1980s, and was consistently struck by how > square and unperceptive the reviews were. The Journal's > reporting was sparkling and witty, the opinions > made conservatism a joy to embrace, but the arts > critics were clods. > ************* I don't care for the WSJ's current in-house critic, but Kyle Smith is just an occasional contributor to the WSJ. The WSJ is important because its circulation (2million+ U.S.) is second only to USA TODAY, and in this post Smith seems to have some artistic sensibility beyond the bourgeois sensibility of the captains (or would-be captains) of industry that read the WSJ. I brought up the example of Howard Stern, who would only hurt TM, I believe, if he touted it like Lynch. I guess it really doesn't make much difference if Lynch turns people away from TM with his bizarre antics, anyway, since the movement seems to be relying on pundit groups to accomplish the transition from misery to light. Also, the price of TM continues to baffle the TMO, so promotional efforts can only fail until some flyer actually flies -- the San Diego center, with it's two initiations a month (and San Diego is a pretty sizable city in a county of more than 3 million people) nearly had to close: http://tinyurl.com/y8ytbz I have posted several positive reviews of Lynch's work, so it's clearly not all bad news for his image, by any means.
