Archangel357 said:
Jonluw said:
Actually; his opinion does matter. Infact, his opinion is the only one that matters. Never did he deny the impact Shakespeare's works have had on literature. He simply stated that he did not think Shakespeare's works were good. And let me tell you: Noone, noone can tell him otherwise. Do you know why? Because 'good' is a subjective term; and whether a book is "good" or "bad" varies from person to person, as opposed to measurable facts, such as the impact the work had on the society of its time. He defines what he thinks is good and bad. No matter how bloody awesome you find Shakespeare's works, that will not allow him to enjoy them any further.
You're wrong. There is accounting for taste. If your personal opinion is that shit tastes better than chocolate, you are sent to a mental institution. If your personal opinion is that Lady GaGa is superior to Mozart, you open yourself to ridicule. You're free to dislike Shakespeare or any great work of art, but if you fail to respect it, smart people are going to call you an idiot. As GC Lichtenberg said, if a head and a book collide, and it makes a hollow sound, it's not always the book's fault.
The Sistine Chapel is good.
it is a yardstick. Your feeble individual opinion (or mine, for that matter), compared to its significance, matters exactly ZERO. The idea that some teen-aged jackass believes that it's his place to comment on a work which has lasted throughout the centuries... make something half as good, THEN you can talk.
Opinions are shit. In any given field, only the opinion of those in the know is worth ANYTHING.
"In any given field, only the opinion of those in the know is worth ANYTHING." Excuse me, what exactly are those opinions worth? Do they, like, produce anything of real value? Does writing down your opinion somehow make a coin magically appear out of thin air? Do their opinions produce food, or anything of value at all? The only way a professional opinion on a book can be worth anything to anyone else, is when he has specialized on telling what kind of books will appeal to the most people; so that the people can buy the books he recommends, and have fairly good chances of liking them. Thus saving them some money. The reviewer still hasn't created anything of value though. He is merely a buffer between the receiver and the product of real value: the book.
You do know that the critics and reviewers of the time thought Moby Dick was a piece of shit, right? (A slight exaggeration, but you get my drift.)
The reason we revere the opinions of people educated on the field, is that we imagine these people are able to predict the impact a work will have on society. Still, a normal person doesn't judge a book by the same merits as a literature doctorate. In the end, what someone with a Ph.D. thinks about a book will count for nothing after he is dead. His opinions won't stand as truth, because they are just that: opinions.
As I said, the person never disrespected Shakespeare's works. Hell, he posted it in a thread about Great masterpieces. If anything, he acknowledged the impact of the works and the general opinion that the works are great, but he disagreed. He did not find the works enjoyable; and a thousand bookworms shouting at him from their high horses won't convince him otherwise. I fail to see where he is wrong.
The Sistine Chapel isn't objectively good. Everyone will have to agree that it is an impressive piece of work; particularly considering the technology the makers had at hand, and if you disagree with that, you're a looney, because that is irrefutable fact. However; noone can tell you you're wrong if you do not like the look of it. I personally am not that fascinated by that giant penis painted in the ceiling. I would have found it much preferrable if Adam wore a tuxedo, and God wore a top-hat. That might sound silly to you, but I'm not wrong. It's my personal opinion.
I find it amusing that you say my or your opinion matters exactly zero. That is not the case, good sir. My opinion matters 100% to me, and your opinion matters 100% to you. The only way an opinion can matter outside of the holder's own subjective perception of reality, is if the holder of the opinion manages to skew the opinions of others.
I had a fucking great time with Mirror's edge, but clearly, since the reviewers didn't, I can not have had a great time with it at all. My memory must be incorrect. But... I clearly remember finishing the game more than four times on different difficulties, with and without guns and having a blast. Would I have done that if it was a bad game?
"Irrelevant! People who play more videogames than me said it was bad!" But, but, that doesn't mean I have to think it's bad...
"Yes it does! Their opinion matters more than your!" Uh... Not to me, it doesn't... I have my own subjective perception of reality, and the only opinions that matter here are my own. I'm free to think what I want about what I want.
The only point in which my own opinions don't matter are in legal issues. Because if my opinion on subjects such as drugs deviate from the norm, the other people will come after me.
Of course it is the place of some teen-aged jackass to comment on a work that has lasted out centuries. Sure, he can't expect his opinion to sway that of others, but when someone asks for the opinion of the genral people on a subject, of course his is as valid as any other's.
And for the record: If I think shit tastes better than chocolate, I'm not sent to a mental institution: I'll just go hang out with like-minded people. If you want to, you may go do a quick google-search for "scat porn", but I warn you, that stuff is extremely not safe for work.
I fear this post might have become a bit disjointed and unclear, since I tend to lose my train of thought in the middle of sentences and have some trouble formulating my thoughts, but hopefully you will get the basics of what I'm saying.
I must say, your entire post history in this thread reeks of an unbearable elitism.
