Congratulations, David! Want to help my kids with their homework?


At 11:38 AM 08/01/99 EST, you wrote:
> I just LOVE it whenever people ask listmembers to define words. It
>often represents an exercise in futility which nevertheless can be very
>amusing. This particular request has more legitimacy than most, since
>"blockbuster," in the sense of major events, is not yet in some of the
>dictionaries to which we have ready access (has anyone tried looking up
>the word in a recently published dictionary in their local Borders or
>what have you?). My Webster's has only two meanings, viz.: (1) a huge
>bomb, and (2) someone who scares homeowners into selling by suggesting
>that minorities are moving into the neighborhood. I would humbly suggest
>that the first definition (not the second) has been used in a
>metaphorical sense to describe certain events, such as museum
>exhibitions. Before inventing some half-baked personal definition, it
>might be instructive to examine what a "blockbuster" bomb does. First,
>it's relative. A blockbuster is simply much bigger than other bombs--but
>last year's blockbuster might be this year's lame firecracker. HOW is a
>blockbuster bigger than other bombs--how is it measured? I'd suggest
>that impact is the criterion. A megaton, really big bomb could be a
>laughable fizzler if it's improperly designed or doesn't have the right
>ingredients to produce a major impact.
>
>I think a blockbuster exhibition is simply one that has a major
>impact--period. I suggest that the relevant impact is on an
>audience--i.e., it obtains a large audience during its term (exhibitions
>with deep historical impact, fondly remembered as "pivotal,"
>"influential," or "crucial," seldom are called "blockbusters" if no one
>came to see them). I therefore think that audience size is the way you
>measure blockbuster exhibition impact.
>
>Lengthy lists of alleged characteristics of "blockbuster" exhibitions
>are tedious and reveal more about the writer's agenda or personal
>interests than the nature of exhibitions. Why does a "blockbuster" have
>to use innovative, cutting-edge technology? That might be one way to
>achieve a blockbuster, but I'm not aware that the Van Gogh blockbuster
>was noteworthy for technology. The fact that most blockbusters are
>expensive is not germane to define the term, either, even if 99% are
>expensive. Do you think people come to see a show merely because it was
>expensive to produce? Talk of money arouses interest, but it doesn't
>ensure an audience. Since "blockbuster" is also used to describe movies,
>you must be aware that some very expensive movies have been box-office
>duds, while an occasional low-budget film gets a huge audience and
>becomes known as a blockbuster.
>
>
>Blockbuster bombs have a big impact (probably measured in terms of
>devastation--people killed, real estate levelled, landscape destroyed).
>How that was achieved is irrelevant. I'm sure someday some mad scientist
>will devise a simple, low-tech, inexpensive blockbuster. And there's no
>reason a museum exhibition which strikes a chord with enough people
>can't be low-tech, inexpensive, and perhaps even small in size to become
>a blockbuster. It would be measured and defined in terms of audience.
>Period.
>
>--David Haberstich
>
>
Jane Sproull Thomson