Some have found the vocabulary, phrasing, etc. in our reviews to be a bit much. Here’s an alternate viewpoint:
One aspect of his generosity was that he did not simplify himself. This was partly because he sought to influence the influencers — to make conservatism morally and intellectually defensible in the elite circles where it wasn’t. He was after converts in high places.
But he paid the masses the compliment of taking their intellects seriously. He talked to them the way he talked to everyone. He dazzled them with his never-ending vocabulary, and I think this actually helped them understand what he said: They had to make sense of it before reacting.
I’m not comparing us to this writer except to point out that if you see a big word, it’s an invitation to learn it, and by implication, the belief that you can learn it and enjoy seeing it used well.
Don’t change a goddamn thing. Most people have two choices when it comes to reading metal reviews: anus.com or blabbermouth.net. I’ll take the former.
I wouldn’t understand the album reviews or articles if they were watered down to appease the intellect of the masses.
as an English major and a “newcomer” to REAL metal, it became clear very quickly that DLA was THE resource for album reviews. rather than waste time bouncing around from this metal site, to that metal site, to try to learn about metal, I settled on ANUS because of the way the reviews were written. it’s the biggest asset ANUS has goind for it.
I have trouble with the reviews, but that doesn’t stop me from trying to decipher and learn from them. A parallel: the first time I read Faust, or listened to a classical symphony, I probably didn’t “get it,” but that didn’t stop me from continuing to learn, and trying again (and again).
Knowledge and learning are primary hessian values. Reading through old school death metal lyrics, one can see this quite clearly. The people who complain about ANUS’ use of language are sheep in wolves’ clothing. Fuck ’em.
If there is a weakness, it is the way the spidery syntax sometimes breaks loose from all controls and crawls back up its own ass, in that, while concept remains lucid and context clear, a doob hit intervenes and the occasional clause slips free of its moorings to bravely soldier on without the supporting architecture of an actual sentence.
I have no problems with the way everything is written. Most of the time it forces me to read more deliberately and think to realize what is actually being said.
when it comes to the music reviews, though, I get completely lost when anything beyond basic, first-year-in-band music theory starts cropping up.