Great masterpieces... that suck!

[ABLb0y]

Ok, here is the extent of the plot of Of Mice and Men i understood: Two men arrive at a farm, everyone else goes on a bloodhunt for one of the guys for some reason, and the other one shoots him.

 

[Jonluw]

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're not necessary supposed to feel pity for the flawed hero. The thing is, in most plays, there is more than one character. Watch, say, Ibsen's "The Wild Duck". If Hedwig's fate - caused by the bloody-mindedness of a man who only means well - does not make you cry, you have no heart.

My point wasn't only that not feeling pity for the character was a deal-breaker. More that the character simply acts in such a stupid/illogical way that he just ceases to be believable, and makes it impossible for the reader/viewer to become emotionally invested in the character. It breaks the immersion.

I do, for the record, believe I would be able to watch The Wild Duck without crying. That's more about me not being the kind of guy who cries from things other than physical pain though.
The only piece of fiction that has ever made me shed a single tear is Clannad After story; and I refuse to believe The Wild Duck would be able to affect me in the same way it did. At least from the excerpts that I've read.

 

[Denamic]

Citizen Kane.
People said it's the greatest move of all time.
So I watched it, and it turns out it was the greatest waste of time of all time.
So... much... useless... talking!
I swear, 90% of it is banter.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Hmmm... Actually the only thing I can think of is that most literature from before about 1930 seems a little dry, but lots of it is still excellent. I mean, there's stuff that's just not written for someone like me (Pride And Prejudice), that I'd likely hate.

Oh and Radiohead. Fuck Radiohead.

 

[Jonluw]

I hate everything shakespeare-related. I say he's over-rated. Others say "NO HE'S NOT HE'S THE BEST WRITER EVAHHHHHH". I honestly don't mind studying literature at school. Recently, I've read John Steinbeck's 'Of Mice And Men' and that's a very solid well-written book. But reading Shakespeare? Just No. Nothing to learn from him. At all.

Yeah, and the fact that one's removed about 80 years from your time, and the other about five times as much, has nothing to do with that. That's like saying that you identify more with your friends than with your great-grandparents. Well, DUH.

You are not a yardstick. Your opinion doesn't matter. For 350 years, every playwright learnt most of his craft from Shakespeare. The fact that YOU can't learn anything from him says all about you, and nothing about him. Again, Shakespeare's works aren't BOOKS. They're PLAYS. Do you think that even the best movie scripts compare favourably to novels when they're read? Hell no. You're not supposed to read Shakespeare. Go watch his stuff.

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.

 

[Arsen]

DUNE

All of them, including the first one. I disagree with the fans and with science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke who described it as "unique" and claimed "I know nothing comparable to it except Lord of the Rings."
The most credit i can give Dune is that it is a good, solid story, but it is nowhere remotely close to being a "masterpiece."

I would like to point out the fact that you have a Klayman avatar. Thank you so very much for having such an avatar.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

James Joyce wasn't a genius, he was just trolling everybody.

Ayn Rand was an autistic ***** who should've had her brains knocked out at birth.

BioShock is overrated, pretentious garbage that abuses lens flare and blur more than every shitty artist on deviantART put together.

Pink Floyd only had three good albums.

H.P. Lovecraft just needed to stop doing so many drugs writing, period.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was impressive when I was in third grade--but that was a very long time ago. It takes a lot more than purple prose and elf cities to impress me now.

I don't give two tugs of a dead dog's dick for Anne Frank or her diary. Yeah, the Holocaust happened, thirteen million people died just because Hitler was prejudiced against them, I get it, can I put this loathsome piece of trash down now? Just because she died in a concentration camp doesn't mean Anne Frank was any less vapid, annoying, or worthless than the millions of teenage girls keeping diaries today.

Oh, and fuck Led Zeppelin, too. Robert Plant cannot fucking sing, period.

Deus ex
That game simply sucks.
No matter how good story or choices you make,if the gameplay sucks the game too sucks.

This.

One eyed bastard mother of god, THIS. I agree a 100% with this, although I would like to add that The Beatles are overrated, and while I won't say they suck, Pink Floyd have received a bit mor praise than I feel they deserve.

 

[Goldeneye103X2]

My opinion on this subject is largely neutral, but you seem to be getting very defensive of Shakespeare here. I know their opinion isn't as "important" (for want of a better term) than other writers/playwrights who worshipped him, but can't you at least allow them to voice it?

I'm not defensive of Shakespeare in particular. I am defensive of any great artist's right not to be denigrated by somebody who knows jack shit.

Also, I have zero problem with anybody voicing their opinion. However, tell me if you can spot the difference between these two statements.

"Personally, I don't get anything from Shakespeare/Goethe/Dante/Picasso. I know that he's universally respected, but it just doesn't do anything for me."

"Shakespeare/Goethe/Dante/Picasso suck arse. They're boring, and I can't understand how anybody could like that shit."


There is a difference between an opinion and worthless, self-absorbed rubbish.

I've been reading through most of this thread now, and I would like to say a couple of things. First of all, I would like to apologise for giving off the wrong impression about me. I have read over my post, and I did kind of sound like a troll. I can understand why to you it may have sounded like deliberate attention-seeking on my part, but what I was trying to say was something along the lines of "I don't enjoy shakespeare's works as much as others. I appreciate how he has done a lot for the world, and his language can be enjoyable to read for the sake of it, but There isn't much else to him in my view".

I am being completely honest, and I wasn't trying to provoke a flame war. I just happened to not express my opinion in a respectable and correct fashion. If it's worth anything, then I'm sorry for this mistake.
Secondly, I do appreciate some other artists. For example, I like Dante (being half-italian myself and all) and after watching the film Amadeus, I have plenty of appreciation for Mozart's music. I also like Dumas and some of picasso's works. If anything though, all those guys are exceptions. I don't know why, but I'm not one for classic art. I'm sure it's the same with many other guys here. Modern art is just something I naturally enjoy more. I know i've got to accept that most people just like shakespeare, just like it would be nice if you accepted that the guy just doesn't cut it for me.

And to everyone else: I'm still glad that some of you attempted to defend and respect my view, even if it was still expressed poorly.

 

[someotherguy]

You seem to be forgetting Shakespeare was a man. Not a god. In this post and others.
His opinion matters, to anyone thats willing to listen. I don't think he's saying no one can learn anything from Shakespeare, he just personally found nothing of value there. IMHO you're not looking at this post with the right scope in mind.

One sentence.

"Games cannot be art."

I'm a literature grad student. Do I not have the right to defend an art form which I love from stupid, denigrating comments by people who have no appreaciation for it, and who likely know next to nothing from it?

All I am saying is that canon exists for a reason, and anybody who goes to the trouble of acquiring the necessary appreciation usually understands why. Also, I hate teen-agers.

How does the games cannot be art sentence apply to this, at all? If you think that, alright, thats fine.

Yes, you're perfectly within your rights to defend an art form that you love. I'm getting an increasingly evident sense of elitism here. If it bugs you that they just say it sucks, so what? Thats the way people are. Some simply don't care about the art you love. Move on, they've got better things to care about, so do you. And referring to another post, no, someones opinion is still worth something in comparison to the Sistine chapel, or any damn work for that matter. You don't have to be qualified to have an opinion on something.