Great masterpieces... that suck!

[Jonluw]

Most of Willie Shakespeare's library, I.M.O. Whiney emo-ish protagonists generally in situations of their own creation and continuation that I can't empathize with... The language used is generally we-structured and beautiful, the man was a wordsmith without a doubt, but I just could never bring myself to care for the characters in his tales.

Congratulations, you have no idea what tragedy is supposed to be about.

Congratulations, that was rude and uncalled for.

Tragedy is sorrowful and mournful catharsis in characters brought about by circumstances, but I've never been able to feel very sorry for the mouse that continues to push the cheese button and get shocked over and over. This is behaviour we see all over Shakespeare's characters, self-induced circumstances which are acknowledged by the protagonist and even cultivated to their eventual climax. It may be tragic, but not from my viewpoint. It's more bull-headed and ignorant if anything. Some of his greatest works, at least in the eyes of most of society, "Hamlet", "Romeo and Juliet" involve characters doing what they know will destroy them, all the way up until they get exactly what they knew would happen. Hardly tragic to me...

...actually, that is the very definition of tragedy. Analytic drama? Oedipus Rex? Henrik Ibsen?

The whole idea is the inevitability of the catastrophe.

I can agree with TheDarkestDerp here. Is not the intent of tragedy to make the viewer/reader feel sad? Well, clearly, TheDarkestDerp can't feel sad for people who are only in the situation they are because they act like morons, and still keep pushing towards what will clearly lead to their despair. That is the very opposite of the catastrophe being inevitable. It's as "evitable" as it can get; the main characters are just too stupid to avoid it. Why should he/she feel sorry for their suffering then?

 

[sheogoraththemad]

I love daVinci but I don't know why people think the mona lisa was his best one

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

I love how so many people act like catchy music is inherently bad.

To those people, I say this: Take your math-rock and your black metal and your prog and whatever else you listen to just because nobody else can stand it, turn it sideways, and shove it up your ugly ass. I'll stick with songs that are actually fun to listen to, thanks.

[lol, metapost]

I love daVinci but I don't know why people think the mona lisa was his best one

Because it's in better shape than the Last Supper, I suppose. And because Dan Brown didn't write a crappy novel involving a conspiracy hidden in it.

 

[Korenith]

Dracula (its dry, too drawn out and the ending is awful)

Great Expectations (the characters are almost exclusively two dimensional and only there to serve a single purpose)

A lot of Shakespeare's plays, esp Romeo and Juliet (his characters just don't feel consistent or believable to me most of the time but maybe that's an era thing)

Wuthering Heights because every damn character is an insufferable prick/whiny ***** and I couldn't give a flying fuck about a single one of them

And finally the worst book I have ever read Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe. It is the most boring, tedious exercise in prose I have ever endured. However it was one of the very first actual novels so maybe I shouldn't be so hard on it. Just make sure you never have to read it!!

 

[Vykrel]

ive never been a big fan of the Mona Lisa. its the most well-known painting in the world, and everyone loves it... people enjoy her "mysterious smile" or whatever they call it.

it just looks very regular to me. nothing against DaVinci, but that painting is just very ordinary in my eyes.

also, i dont like how people can make art a thousand times more spectacular nowadays, but nobody will remember them nearly as much as paintings like the Mona Lisa.

also i think the painting became famous because of michelangelo and why he painted it and the mystery behind all that jazz, probably why people ask what shes smiling about. It became famous that way and stayed famous because word of mouth (and, he's michelangelo). People say its ______ and so it is. Im not awed by it either really, i like his slaves to the rock much better (especially since theyre put in the hallway leading up to the David, so David is contemptuously mocking them with his freedom)

its actually painted by Leonardo Da Vinci, but i agree with you

in fact, there seems to be quite a few people here that just see it as just a decent painting. nothing extraordinary. glad im not the only one

Edit: GAW i just noticed the guy above me mentioned Shakespear. i cant stand his plays, and because of their popularity, damn near everyone has to read/perform at least one of them in their school career.

hell, romeo and juliet has been turned into a plot device in more sitcoms than i can count. and it sucks every time, because it all comes down to a character either being too nervous to kiss their co-star, or they just plain dont want to. i hope hollywood is done with that play

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Hamlet. Some prince of Denmark needs to learn to shut up and stop being a whiny *****.

I can't stand Emily Dickinson. At all. Her metaphors are interesting, but her presentation is terrible. Not to mention every damn poem uses the same damn meter. Yellow Rose of Texas, anybody?

Death of a Salesman was all right. Pretty bland, though.

 

[Korenith]

I love how so many people act like catchy music is inherently bad.

To those people, I say this: Take your math-rock and your power metal and your prog and whatever else you listen to just because nobody else can stand it, turn it sideways, and shove it up your ugly ass. I'll stick with songs that are actually fun to listen to, thanks.

Erm... not to be picky here but power metal is stuff like Dragonforce, Edguy, Hammerfall etc. It's a genre built on catchiness, cheesy meaningless lyrics and really fast guitar solos. There are exceptions of course but I think you're picking on the wrong genre there

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

The level of idiocy in this thread is astounding. And these are the people who get their panties in a twist when Roger Ebert says something daft about video games while not even seeing the irony in somebody who doesn't know the difference between Mantegna and Della Francesca calling Leonardo "shit" because he prefers deviantart.

Canon exists for a reason, gentlemen. Somebody who says that, say, Faust "sucks" says WAY more about himself (and none of it very flattering) than about the quality of Goethe's work.

That said, OT: Ayn Rand. With an asterisk, since nobody who knows the first thing about literature considers her to be more than a megalomaniacal, autistic hack. But God, are there legions of retards who love her.

Just because there are foaming-at-the-mouth-fans who dont know the first thing about literature doesnt mean that she doesnt have anything to say. The mouth breathing masses like everything, it doesnt make what they like worthless.

Hahaha, oh wow.

Sorry for dredging up the same quote everyone else's already used to death by now, but Chuck Palahniuk said it best: You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile.

This is the truth, and this is why Objectivism fails utterly and irredeemably. Objectivism is a philosophy that pretty much says anyone who believes in it is innately superior to everyone who doesn't. [That's how religions keep people hooked, did you know that?] Problem is, there's no such thing as being innately superior to somebody else. Especially not when the litmus test is based on whether or not you think Atlas Shrugged and/or The Fountainhead are great literature. And "superiority" is irrelevant anyway, because we live in societies, not as nomadic individuals. Try as we might to avoid one another, the fact remains that people are all stuck in this together, so being selfish does the individual more harm than good.

What Ayn Rand had to say was inherently worthless. It didn't take a slew of slobbering 80's douchebags to make it so.

what do you think she said?

Ooh--look at you, Mr. Smug Pseudointellectual. Say, by the way, did you know that "A = A" is not a valid premise for a logical proof? It's actually what's called a truism--something so staggeringly obvious that it goes without saying.

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

I love how so many people act like catchy music is inherently bad.

To those people, I say this: Take your math-rock and your power metal and your prog and whatever else you listen to just because nobody else can stand it, turn it sideways, and shove it up your ugly ass. I'll stick with songs that are actually fun to listen to, thanks.

Erm... not to be picky here but power metal is stuff like Dragonforce, Edguy, Hammerfall etc. It's a genre built on catchiness, cheesy meaningless lyrics and really fast guitar solos. There are exceptions of course but I think you're picking on the wrong genre there

Oh! You're right, now that I think about it!

Sorry. I hate power metal too, but for a completely different reason. Gonna go back and fix it now.

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

David Lynch can put down the woodworking for a while and suck my balls. Eraserhead was just terrible.

These aren't exactly considered "masterpieces", but...whoever wrote Napoleon Dynamite, Superbad, Juno, the 40-Year-Old Virgin, and whatever other crap I can't remember just needs to be drawn and quartered.

Steve Carrell and Will Ferrell are not funny. Period.

All these "Law and Order"-type shows are just appalling. They do a good job accurately portraying law enforcement--amoral shells who care more about getting someone locked up than whether the person is actually guilty--but then they expect the audience to root for them anyway. A lot of people probably do, which makes me even more sick, because those people probably believe that such behavior is a Good Thing.

 

[Jonluw]

I can agree with TheDarkestDerp here. Is not the intent of tragedy to make the viewer/reader feel sad? Well, clearly, TheDarkestDerp can't feel sad for people who are only in the situation they are because they act like morons, and still keep pushing towards what will clearly lead to their despair. That is the very opposite of the catastrophe being inevitable. It's as "evitable" as it can get; the main characters are just too stupid to avoid it. Why should he/she feel sorry for their suffering then?

What you call "acting like morons" is the fundamental driving force behind the art form; the hero's fatal flaw. Also, according to Aristotelian dramatic theory, the purpose of tragedy is to engender feelings of fear and pity, NOT sadness. The fear comes from the catastrophe being visible a mile off - hell, in analytical drama, the damage always has already been done, and there is nothing anybody can do to change anything. There are no spoilers in tragedy, so to speak.

And you don't see how some people just can't feel pity for someone who drives themselves into their own doom?
The fundamental flaw is the dealbreaker here. The character simply isn't believable to some if he keeps doing stuff that will obviously lead to him ending up six feet under.

I, for instance, do not feel sorry for gluttonous people who die from diabetes type 2, just because they can't control themselves.
*He wrote, while contemplating whether to go get another piece of gingerbread-dough.*

 

[Nickolai77]

The thing with the Mona Lisa is that her eyes follow you across the room...which is pretty cool but i don't think it quite deserves it's status. Personally i think Rapheal's School of Athens deserves to be the most memorable work of art from the Italian Rennaisance. At any rate, most of these classical paintings are better than what's made today in art.

My main gripe is defiantly Shakespeare. He was a good playwright and a slighter better poet- Overall, a talented writer indeed. However, he certainly does not deserve to be worshipped as some sort of literary idol- he wasn't a perfect writer.

Also, the Beatles. Sounds like old pop-rock music to me, why are the Beatles music god's?

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I can agree with TheDarkestDerp here. Is not the intent of tragedy to make the viewer/reader feel sad? Well, clearly, TheDarkestDerp can't feel sad for people who are only in the situation they are because they act like morons, and still keep pushing towards what will clearly lead to their despair. That is the very opposite of the catastrophe being inevitable. It's as "evitable" as it can get; the main characters are just too stupid to avoid it. Why should he/she feel sorry for their suffering then?

What you call "acting like morons" is the fundamental driving force behind the art form; the hero's fatal flaw. Also, according to Aristotelian dramatic theory, the purpose of tragedy is to engender feelings of fear and pity, NOT sadness. The fear comes from the catastrophe being visible a mile off - hell, in analytical drama, the damage always has already been done, and there is nothing anybody can do to change anything. There are no spoilers in tragedy, so to speak.

And you don't see how some people just can't feel pity for someone who drives themselves into their own doom?
The fundamental flaw is the dealbreaker here. The character simply isn't believable to some if he keeps doing stuff that will obviously lead to him ending up six feet under.

I, for instance, do not feel sorry for gluttonous people who die from diabetes type 2, just because they can't control themselves.
*He wrote, while contemplating whether to go get another piece of gingerbread-dough.*

You realise of course that Juliet is about fourteen years old in the original play, and Romeo is a womanising tosser who got in way over his head. Neither of these people are paragons of emotional maturity and thus while their decisions make the mind boggle, they probably make sense when you're either naive to the world or have taken to ignoring it entirely to your peril.

Thats the problem with the plays and movies, they cast an adult in a role of someone barely into puberty and as a result a lot of the subtext is lost.

In fact I remember someone telling me that it works on a few levels. One as a bit of dark satire about arranged marriages, a template for almost every tragic love story that has been made since and one the best unintentional comedies Shakespeare ever wrote.

I don't blame you for finding it boring, it can be deathly so. However to write it off totally from its place in history is inexcusable.

 

[someotherguy]

I'll probably get called all sorts of things, but I couldn't stand Tom Sawyer, Romeo and Juliet, And The Lord of the rings Books. I'm sorry, but Tolkien spent far to much of his time in that book saying "wahhhh, humans suck, wahhh, they're really weak" .

And before long, I know someones going to insult Les Miserables or half life. I actually liked those.

 

[someotherguy]

Dracula (its dry, too drawn out and the ending is awful)

Great Expectations (the characters are almost exclusively two dimensional and only there to serve a single purpose)

A lot of Shakespeare's plays, esp Romeo and Juliet (his characters just don't feel consistent or believable to me most of the time but maybe that's an era thing)

Wuthering Heights because every damn character is an insufferable prick/whiny ***** and I couldn't give a flying fuck about a single one of them

And finally the worst book I have ever read Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe. It is the most boring, tedious exercise in prose I have ever endured. However it was one of the very first actual novels so maybe I shouldn't be so hard on it. Just make sure you never have to read it!!

Can not agree more with great expectations. To me, the parts that where suppose to make you say "Wow!" Where too predictable, dry, and otherwise unoriginal.

 

[5-0]

Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Nothing happens!