Print This Post Print This Post

The Psychology of Trolling

203516951

 

[UPDATE: Please read the comments following this article, especially if you're planning to respond with a comment yourself.  I think there are some good comments that raise some interesting objections, and I responded with some added clarifications that I think people may find helpful. Plus any objections you plan on raising may have already been raised and addressed in the comments already. - T.]

For added context, I highly recommend that people read this series of posts on competitors versus cooperators, either before of after reading this current post you’re reading now: here, here, here, here, and here.

I think this video below is one of the best deconstructions of  ”intelligent” trolls, both the real life and the online kind.

I think a major part of trolls, or anyone who chronically courts controversy for its own sake, which people don’t realize, is that it’s someone who wants recognition, who wants acceptance, who wants love, but on some level has given up on getting it in conventional ways. So they try to troll or generate controversy, because it has at least two payoffs. First, it keeps them from being ignored. Second, since they feel on some level that they will never get the full recognition they deserve, or that people hating them is inevitable, they at least want to try to be hated on their own terms, so they can at least feel some sense of control and dominance (“See? I’m not trying to make you like me and getting rejected. I’m deliberately trying to make you hate me and it’s working! I’m in control! You’re a puppet on my string!”) It’s a form of self-handicapping.

Being an asshole on purpose is self-handicapping much like not studying and going drinking the night before a test is. When people self-handicap by not studying before a test and going out drinking, they’re afraid of themselves and others finding out they’re not smart. If they give something their all and try their hardest, holding nothing back, and still fail, they fear being exposed to themselves and others as being fundamentally defective (this is a shame issue). By not studying and going out drinking before the exam, they reserve an excuse for themselves. If they do badly, they can say “Oh, I didn’t study and I drank before the exam. If I didn’t do that, I could have done well.” If they do well, they can say “Oh, look how good I did! Can you imagine if I actually studied and didn’t drink before the exam?” And if he does study later on, it will look more impressive because of lowered standards. Someone who never usually studies buckling down and studying is far more impressive than someone who has always been an overachieving studier being seen studying yet again.

Similarly, the “asshole on purpose” guy is usually someone who has given up on being loved in a conventional way in response to a sincere, earnest, all-out effort, for whatever reason. So he self-handicaps through assholery. If he treats people like shit and they don’t like him, he can brag “Yeah, I’m such an asshole. I don’t give a fuck! I try to piss people off!” If people still like him despite his assholery, he can say “Man, look at that. I’m an asshole and people still love me. I really must be just that smart/talented/insightful. Can you imagine if I actually tried to conform to society’s norms and work within them how successful I’d be?” And because of lowered standards that come from his usual asshole ways, when he shows an effort to be nice or shows a soft, sensitive side, he gets far more props for it than a guy who is always nice and considerate. It’s like the Jerk With a Heart of Gold character trope you see in movies and TV. The jerk who does a nice thing, no matter how mundane, is so much more admired than the normally nice guy doing yet another nice thing.

images

I also believe this is the fantasy need some characters like Hank Moody on shows like Californication fill for viewers. I absolutely loathe Californication and the lead character Hank Moody, yet I keep finding myself hate-watching the show, because I’m always trying to figure out what the appeal is (beyond the obvious, which is the sex and nudity). One of my theories is that many people fantasize about being able to be so irresistible and intrinsically awesome that they can be utter assholes and still end up being loved for it, which to many people is a bigger sign of self-worth than being nice and being loved for it. For many shame-based people, they only act nice out of a sense of weakness, as a way to get approval and be liked. They end up viewing any form of niceness as an admission of low value, both in themselves and in other people. They only persist in being nice because they feel that’s the only option available to them to get approval, because they have such little bargaining power otherwise, maybe because they feel not attractive enough, not rich enough, not socially savvy enough, etc.

That’s why many of these same people turn into total assholes once they feel any sense of power shift in their favor in a social dynamic, like the Nice Guy who laments how his hot female friend puts him in the friend zone despite how nice he is, but becomes a jerk when he’s dealing with a fat and unattractive chick whose comparative value to him is the same as his comparative value to the hot girl friendzoning him. His niceness is totally context-dependent, coming from situations where he feels weak and unworthy. That’s also why many of these same shame-based people, both narcissists and codependents, can’t respect or reciprocate people who love them unconditionally even after knowing all their flaws or make things “too easy” for them. Because they themselves only act nice when feeling weak and out of a feeling of necessity, they project that same motivation on others who act nice and assume they must be weak and inferior too.

Anyway, returning to Californication, I think a major part of its appeal is that fantasy of having such value as to be able to afford to self-handicap via assholery. Of being able to be effortlessly cool, so naturally valuable, that even if you try to fuck things up by being an asshole and make no effort to cooperate, you still end up being loved, and when you do burn bridges it’s always on your own terms, not on anyone else’s. (I also think that’s why so many narcissists choose to be abusive to loved ones when they don’t have to. For them, being loved for being nice is something anyone can do, but being loved despite being a fuck-up or asshole is proof of being a superior being.) Also, because of the lowered standards that come from self-handicapping, any minor, mundane bit of normal humanity that Hank Moody shows is blown way out of  proportion. This is because a lot of people want to be rewarded for the most token, superficial gestures, the bare minimum.

You can see a lot of these principles at play in this article about Tucker Max that came out a while back. When you look at his childhood, you can see the abandonment that came about from his mother and how that led to him to lose faith in being loved just for being him, and why he began self-handicapping with that deliberate asshole persona.

Of course the problem with any form of self-handicapping is, even though it gets you a short-term payoff that makes you feel good at first, because what you really want deep down is conventional success, once the rush from self-sabotage wears off you realize you are no closer to your real goal, or worse, are actually farther away from it. For example, the student who always self-handicaps by not going to class, not studying, and partying hard may get a series of short term ego boosts each time he self-handicaps, but for long term conventional success he’s going to have to eventually work hard and give it his all. He can’t self-handicap forever. Sooner or later he’s going to reach a challenge where his natural gifts and half-assing won’t be enough. Similarly, the deliberate asshole, if he wants the type of deeper and more fulfilling long-term social connection he’s yearning for, he’s going to have to stop self-handicapping, show some vulnerability, and be willing to give something his all and risk failing at it.

Because deep down, despite their exteriors, deliberate assholes actually want to be approved of, recognized, respected, and loved, they just fear  deep down that they can’t get those things the conventional ways, and therefore must self-handicap, so that if they’re hated at least they’re hated on their own terms. This is why the moment a deliberate asshole, a controversy seeker, or a troll feels that he is being hated or rejected on what aren’t his own terms, he becomes incredibly thin-skinned, surprisingly so for someone who claims not to care what others think and actively courts controversy so much. That’s why I love the tweet below from Jay Smooth about Lisa Lampanelli:

 

Unfortunately, most people, when they rush from self-handicapping wears off and they realize they’re back where they started and still in pain, instead of giving up the defective coping strategy, instead choose to double down on it and self-handicap even more, which again gives a short-term emotional payoff, and again leads to no real long-term fulfillment and the return of the original pain they were trying to avoid in the first place, and the vicious cycle (circle?) continues.

Trolls and chronic controversy seekers want attention, recognition, love, and approval, but have just given up on getting them in conventional forms via conventional means. Unfortunately, the same faulty coping strategies they use to deal with this problem in the short run are the exact same ones guaranteed to exacerbate the problem in the long run.

Recommended Resources:

To hear more of Tariq Nasheed’s podcast, subscribe through Itunes or visit his podcast site. Click the following link to try his books and products, which I highly recommend.

30 Responses to “The Psychology of Trolling”


  1. Nice Article. I really recommend the article about Tucker Max as well. It’s well written and insightful.


  2. Yes, I agree. I was a big fan of that article when it came out.


  3. Don’t forget the other motivating factor for trollery on teh Interwebz….$$$$$$

    The shills and opinion whores, who get paid to disrupt forums and subvert discussions. They show up everywhere anyone discusses real truths that are counter to the conventional wisdom of mass media shaped society.


  4. I’m not sure I know what you’re talking about.


  5. http://hawaiianlibertarian.blo.....ation.html

    Rest assured, I’ve noticed that more and more of these types of trolls have been showing up everywhere – including the comment threads in your posts over at NexxtLevel.


  6. Hello T. I think I might know what Keoni is talking about, and I’ll present an example. In Spanish professional football (soccer for you yankees), there’s a famous club, Real Madrid (where David Beckham played), which is the biggest achiever of the country, and the most blatantly pampered team as well. Traditionally it has had the largest fanbase, but is just as well hated by a lot of Spaniards because they have several media covering their asses when they get their way in administrative issues, massaging the bad performances, etc.; in addition to being identified with fascist tendencies and the Franco dictatorship. A bully of a sports club, and yet some of its “fans” feel the need to flood the internet blogs of their fiercest rivals Barcelona (perhaps you’ve heard of Messi) and Atletico de Madrid with trollish spam, filthy and xenophobic language and even death threats aimed at visitors and webmasters. They sometimes get to a point where you wonder how can anyone spend their time like that and with such frequency without having something else to gain beside the “kick” of eliciting hate on purpose.

    I’m sure there are other cases, but that’s the one that I’ve witnessed more closely.


  7. MSPM, that I understand, and I think it’s related to the phenomenon I discuss. People who feel alienated or somehow impotent in their daily lives get overinvested in a popular team and identify with them, especially when they win. They use their fandom as a way to bully others and get narcissistic supply.

    What Keoni seems to be discussing is something more organized, sinister and financially motivated. I’m commenting from a smartphone so I haven’t looked at his link in detail yet, just skimmed.


  8. Good article as usual T. Frequent reader, first time commenter. Your blog and psychological insights are spot on, and they’ve been helping me work through my own issues/upbringing.

    Although Californication seems like a trashy show, interestingly enough Californication is based off of Charles Bukowski’s book Women, which features the authors alter ego; Hank Chinaski. Californication is basically a highly exaggerated and modernized take on Bukowski’s character. The book is much better than its HBO cousin. But they’re obviously not everyone’s cup of tea.

    Tucker Max more or less (in my opinion at least) owes the whole “Narcissistic Asshole that doesn’t give a fuck” genre to Bukowski.


  9. I disagree. I’m a very accomplished and talented troll, and my goal is NOT to have people dislike me, whatsoever. In fact, the people who get upset about my trolls, is because it went over their head. They are too stupid to be my target audience. The smart people are the ones who realize i’m being sarcastic, and they generally see my point.. I’m making the good point, but pretending like i’m the bad guy saying the opposite thing. Colbert does this. Its really quite brilliant, if you can grasp it.


  10. Colbert is not brilliant. He’s just sarcastic. He took a one-note comedy sketch or parodying Bill O’Reilly and somehow stretched that put into a career. It’s clever and he’s very good at it but lets not make more out of it than what it is. We throw out “genius” and “brilliant” far too liberally these days and the fawning accolades used for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are a perfect example. Especially when people pretend it takes some higher level intelligence to grasp Colbert’s sarcasm shtick or that there really are scores of Republicans falling for it.

    But your trolling example still makes my point. You do what you do ultimately for the goal or positive recognition and appreciation.


  11. But there’s another side to this to – that sometimes being the self-involved asshole simply gets you more than not.

    How many nice people who follow the social rules do you know who don’t really get where they want in life? Maybe it’s with women, or maybe it’s with their job and career, but the advantage of them following the established social rules is far less than the advantage of being a little sociopathic.

    Sometimes it’s that the slots at the top for the “following most of the rules” people are already filled up by a bunch of people who started off with a lot of advantages over you (the guy at the top of the company has been there longer, the other guy in class who’s always dating the girl you want is just more attractive or knows how to be more attractive, the popular kid was able to learn positive lessons from his parents rather than you who had to overcome many of the wrong ideas you picked up from your parents).

    Other times it’s because the “rules” you’re told are inherently meant to be broken. Catholics who *really* follow *all* the teachings of their faith about sex and relationships end up single forever – it’s kind of expected that you’ll eventually deviate from them, even if it’s just once and with the person you end up marrying. If you followed all the rules a school laid out for you, you’d never have a social life and never talk to anyone, as the school is most concerned with maintaining order and *not* having the students dating each other because they’ll get flack from some of the parents, etc.

    Other rules are set up to be deliberately manipulative for the gain of the person making the rules. I’ve worked at companies where they acted like you were betraying them if you ever even considered another job, but gave everyone tiny piddling raises each year, leaving your salary way behind what you could be making if you changed jobs. Some bosses will absolutely walk all over you and tell you that you working 80 hours a week for them is the right thing to do, or your responsibility. Etc, etc, etc.

    And then there’s disfunction patterns which work in one system of people, but horrible in another…

    I’m not at all disagreeing with the article, love the article, but I think there’s a lot of other reasons people do it to rather than straightforward self-sabotage. Take Tucker Max for example – he apparently made a lot of money and slept with a lot of women because of the way he was. Sure, other people did better than him, but could *he* have done better than he did with where he started?


  12. Hello, Ricky. I watched Californication’s season 1 and couldn’t keep watching, I didn’t like it that much. However, at least in s01, I haven’t found Hank Moody the asshole the show try to convince us he is. People all around him fuck stuff up everytime, but don’t show the guilt he constantly wears; his wife, for instance, even cheats him at the beginning of the story, while he is depicted as the main sexually irresponsible one. He’s just notoriously, publicly guilty.
    And pardon my bad English \o


  13. Thanks for the response Paul. Let me break it up into smaller chunks:

    But there’s another side to this to – that sometimes being the self-involved asshole simply gets you more than not.

    That’s not really another side. It’s the same dynamic discussed in the post. These people feel that they can’t get their needs met via conventional, earnest, straightford behavior and sincere striving. That’s my exact point. They wouldn’t do it if there wasn’t some sort of perceived payoff to it.

    How many nice people who follow the social rules do you know who don’t really get where they want in life? Maybe it’s with women, or maybe it’s with their job and career, but the advantage of them following the established social rules is far less than the advantage of being a little sociopathic.

    This is where the subhuman/superhuman dichotomy of shame-based people I discussed in earlier posts comes in. Many people are nice, which has healthy aspects to it, but take it too far across the board in all aspects of their lives and become doormats. Other people have a sense of self-interest and assertiveness, which has healthy aspects to it, but take it too far across the board in all aspects of their lives also. Sometimes people who are the latter and become a bit sociopathic, people take that as evidence that being sociopathic is some kind of positive trait necessary for success. But the truth is, there are some parts of the sociopathy that overlap with healthy assertion and confidence and self-esteem, but a lot of it that is toxic, self-destructive, and dysfunctional. That’s why many sociopathic leaders only have short term success and in the long-term always fuck it all up. People have to learn to take the positive aspects of sociopathic behavior and separate them from the negative aspects, and realize that you can have the positive aspects without the negative aspects. It would be like saying “this insanely delusional cult does a lot of charity work, therefore being in this cult is a necessary aspect of being charitable.” It’s a mistaken belief of believing the whole package to be necessary for success instead of pinpointing the exact thing that is positive and throwing out the rest. Similarly, a lot of assholes protect their boundaries, stand up to women, and don’t let them walk all over them. A lot of nice guys don’t. So then people start thinking that the total package of being an asshole, with all the loutish, toxic behaviors that come with it, is responsible for the success. However if a guy could remain nice and fair and nonassholish while still maintaining his boundaries, asserting his rights when needed and checking disrespect, he’d probably do better than both the nice guy AND the asshole. Most people, however, have trouble incorporating both because they lack the maturity and discipline to do it. It’s lazier to just go from one extreme to another.

    I’m not at all disagreeing with the article, love the article, but I think there’s a lot of other reasons people do it to rather than straightforward self-sabotage. Take Tucker Max for example – he apparently made a lot of money and slept with a lot of women because of the way he was. Sure, other people did better than him, but could *he* have done better than he did with where he started?

    What Tucker Max did WAS still self-handicapping/self-sabotage. Did you read the article I linked to? He made a lot of money and slept with a lot of woman using real-life trolling because he felt, rightly or wrongly, that he couldn’t achieve the type of success he wanted by following a more conventional route. You basically support that idea by saying that he needed to be an asshole to become as successful as he did. That’s the exact point I’m making in my article. He gets to control his rejections and maximize the benefit he gets from his acceptances. He felt that just being himself, vulnerabilities and all, wouldn’t get him the success he needed, that only trolling would. By trolling, he gets to get rejected on his terms. You don’t like him? You’re a PC prig or a butthurt feminist. Or a jealous wuss. It protects his ego by controlling his rejections. And any success he gets he can interpret as “See how awesome I am? I’m so cool that despite my blatant deliberate assholishness, I still get laid and get rich. Meanwhile, the rest of you chumps have to play by the rules to get even a fraction of my success.” Meanwhile, there’s also the fear-based belief underlying that behavior that if he did try to get successful by using conventional means, he would just be ignored or blend into the masses, something I discussed in the article when i said that trolls actually would like to be conventionally loved by fear for whatever reason that they’re not good or worthy enough to get love through those conventional methods. This is something you agree with by saying that he would not have been as rich and successful if he wasn’t an asshole.

    Those sentiments you express are not things I missed in my article. I explicitly said that the trolling strategy gets them benefits they may not be able to achieve without using the trolling strategy. You’re actually bolstering my points.

    However, the article I linked to shows my point about the short-term benefits that come from such a strategy are short lived and fleeting. Tucker Max still felt that something was missing. He was trapped in a vicious cycle of ego-protection/ego-boosting self-handicapping that wasn’t giving him deeper, more lasting fulfillment, and he eventually reached the point he felt he had to stop doubling down on the trolling and push away from the table and try another strategy, thereby breaking his cycle.


  14. Thanks for the positive words Gauntlet.

    As far as Californiation:

    Although Californication seems like a trashy show, interestingly enough Californication is based off of Charles Bukowski’s book Women, which features the authors alter ego; Hank Chinaski. Californication is basically a highly exaggerated and modernized take on Bukowski’s character. The book is much better than its HBO cousin. But they’re obviously not everyone’s cup of tea.

    Two things: First, I’m fully aware of the debt that Californication owes to Bukowski. That’s a major reason I don’t like the show actually. Because I think it’s such a second-rate, hackish tribute to the man. Second, my problem with the show isn’t that it’s trashy. I can totally dig lowbrow trashy things when done well. My problem with the show is that I don’t think it’s anywhere near as good as it thinks it is. It’s such a smug, self-satisfied, show that seems so in love with itself to a degree far out of proportion to what it’s actually doing. It really seems to think it’s far more profound and insightful than it actually is. It seems like the shows creator is trying to do author insertion and write about a character that’s an analogue for himself, but as a maverick, badass, modern Bukowski. Just because you’re aping a major talent doesn’t automatically confer some deeper value to your work, especially if your aping that major talent badly, with only a fraction of the insight and talent yourself.


  15. Hello, Ricky. I watched Californication’s season 1 and couldn’t keep watching, I didn’t like it that much. However, at least in s01, I haven’t found Hank Moody the asshole the show try to convince us he is. People all around him fuck stuff up everytime, but don’t show the guilt he constantly wears; his wife, for instance, even cheats him at the beginning of the story, while he is depicted as the main sexually irresponsible one.

    Well, that’s a little more complicated part of the show that I want to discuss when I actually write about the show in depth. There are two aspects to Hank Moody, he is both horribly narcissistic and horribly codependent, and he has the whole superhuman/subhuman dichotomy at play throughout the series. He is always acting narcissistically or codependentlike, and never as a healthily integrated person.

    Remember how I say there is an element of entitlement and narcissism in every codependent and an element of self-subjugation and debasement in every narcissism. I believe Hank Moody is very codependent relationship to women, even though he is mostly narcissistic in his explicit behaviors. Notice that he can’t hold a woman accountable for ANYTHING. His wife is a victim in her cheating on him, because he was a “fuck up.” Mia is a sociopath who tricked him into statutory rape, blackmailed him with it, stole his novel and got rich off of it, and he still comes to her defense and even gets into a fistfight with a guy to protect her. A hooker tricks him into having sex under false pretenses, then demand payment, has her pimp come by to beat him into paying, and he just laughs it off and defends her honor later on when someone treats her badly by fistfighting with the guy. The pattern repeats over and over.

    Heartiste does a good write up on Moody’s codependency here:
    http://heartiste.wordpress.com.....ody-chump/

    I disagree on everything positive he says about the show, like it being well-written or an example of good game, but I agree on the white knighting.

    This comment also touches on how what Hank Moody does in the name of so-called “nobility” is actually unhealthy and codependent (although it doesn’t actually use that word):
    http://heartiste.wordpress.com.....ent-188701


  16. I’ve no idea why but a lot of this just sounds too good to be true to me. I just have this vision of all these “well-adjusted” people in the world accepting each others boundaries, and being “psychologically healthy” people. How do we account for 20K years of tribal warfare? Was Gengis Khan just a man who’s parents brought him up wrong? Was his “badness” dysfunctional behaviour? Are humans the only “ill” animals out there? There seems to be a pre-supposition in all this that evil/badness does not exist independent of culture or upbringing. That dysfunctional behaviour can be accounted for by post-freudian analytic theory. It seems to me that dysfunctional behaviour too often just means “wrong/bad” behaviour. Its quite possible that some people really don’t give a shit and that there are other explanations for why that is other than low self-esteem, smothering mothers and the whole post Freud zeitgeist.

    Cultural/psychological theory is massively over rated imo. Im looking forward to more neuroscience in the future that I suspect will debunk a lot of these “proven” post-Freudian theories about the human organism. That we will find “badness” in brains etc. Im not saying the environment doesn’t play a part I just think we still live in the illusory world of blank slatism where we are “products” of our past experiences.


  17. Who the hell is talking blank slatism? Are you an HBDer?


  18. Have you seen The Talented Mr. Ripley, Ricky? The whole movie seems to revolve around exactly the narcissism/co-dependency topics you talk about on your blog. Would be interested to hear your take on it.


  19. I haven’t seen the movie but I read the book. The character is a great example of malignant narcissist. I’ve seen the French movie version too with Alain Deloin but I forget the title of it (its not “Talented Mr Ripley” in French version.


  20. Okay, looked it up when I got home. French version of Talented Mr Ripley is from 1960 and called Purple Noon. I ordered it from Netflix.


  21. I had some time and checked out Plein Soleil. The films are quite different. I liked the old film because French people are dope, and the movie was fast-moving and entertaining. But I have to say the script of The Talented Mr. Ripley was more subtle and suspenseful, the acting was more captivating and the characters more developed. It did drag on a bit, but was my favorite of the two.

    A couple of differences in the script that I found interesting:
    -In the new film, Marge is portrayed as very forgiving and tolerant of Dickie’s (Phil in the old film) behavior, while with him. She is clearly co-dependent in both films, but in the new one she is actually shown as aware and accepting of the abusive dynamic of relationship.
    -Tom also takes on a much more co-dependent role, and completely abandons his identity to mold to Dickie’s whim’s. They take on a full king/groveler dynamic, where Tom is pretty much portrayed as a creep and loser. In the old film he’s pretty much just an unambiguous narcissist with similar attributes to Phil. In the new film, Tom is more calculating and flexible.


  22. You may find this interesting:
    http://arts.brunel.ac.uk/gate/entertext/bruzzi.pdf


  23. I troll for postive recognition for MY POINT… not for me… These people will never meet me. I gain nothing from their accolades. I’m kicking knowledge for THEIR betterment, not my own…. And i get through to them via trolling.

    The human race is hard-wired to agree with whatever their neighbor thinks…. For them even to listen to an alternate point of view, you must use counter-tactics, such as being a troll, which initially makes them mad, but if they were to actually think about it, they’d see many trolls are actually trying to prove a decent point, but saying the opposite thing to get your interest.

    Trolling is a means to make someone take notice of a new issue, which they are not natively not prone to do. I don’t need people to agree with me to make me feel better about myself. I already am confident in my point of view… If i can wisen up others while i’m on this earth, i’ll be happy for that… I’m a generous soul.


  24. But your trolling example still makes my point. You do what you do ultimately for the goal or positive recognition and appreciation.(Ricky Raw)

    Kinda like the reason you blog, right?


  25. Sure. What’s your point though?


  26. My point is trolling(as some like to call it)is very much like blogging for others(fills a void). I would imagine it is just that some are too lazy to write a whole post themselves. ;)


  27. Again, I’m missing your point. Trolls do what they do to get recognition and fill a void, and so do bloggers. This applies to most people who strive to do anything. I still don’t see the bigger implications you seem to be trying to get at.


  28. Brilliant. I’d say trolls are more than individuals. For example I find newspapers are trolling with some of their content. Maybe all of it. I’d guess it drives page hits and advertising via readers comments. The more there are I start to wonder about trolling. I suspect it is rife in academia and politics. It would be a powerful tool to form opinion when written well. It has to be, in my opinion, a sophisticated tool in the propagandists tool box.


  29. You may find this interesting:
    http://arts.brunel.ac.uk/gate/entertext/bruzzi.pdf

    Nice man, thanks for the link. Reading it immediately gave me the feeling of joy someone might have who feels as though they’re beginning their path as a pseudo-amateur film critic haha. That woman has some really intriguing insights. And of course I’m apparently just completely naive to jump to the conclusion that the American version is “subtle”. What can I say… >:D

    P.S. Do you have any film critics who you follow/admire? Would be really interested in looking up their reviews if you do and continuing down that trail.


  30. I have a problem, I lloooovvvveee trolling trolls, So what does that say about me.

Leave a Reply