Anderson's muckraking is one of debatable ends constantly used to justify questionable works.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I don't think Paul Thomas Anderson has a standard approach to anything.
The reserve of modern assertions is sometimes pushed to extremes, in which the fear of being contradicted leads the writer to strip himself of almost all sense and meaning.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
The novelist has a responsibility to adhere to the facts as closely as possible, and if they are inconvenient, that's where the art comes in. You must work with intractable facts and find the dramatic shape inside them.
No matter how hard we strive for objectivity, writers are biased toward tension - those moments in which character is forged and revealed.
A bad author can take the most moral issue and make you want to just never, ever think about that moral issue.
There has been a rather unpleasant sensibility apparent in Frank Miller's work for quite a long time.
The Archer novels are about various kinds of brokenness.
The writer knows his own worth, and to be overvalued can confuse and destroy him as an artist.
Any work that aspires, however humbly, to the condition of art should carry its justification in every line.