Great masterpieces... that suck!

[4173]

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.

Obviously everyone's line for immersion is different, I won't argue that. But in classic tragedies, the point is not that the characters are acting illogically, they are acting the only way they can. They may be stupid or illogical, but that is beside the point. It is not a failure of willpower, because there was no choice or alternative. The characters are not as well informed as the audience, I could even be pretentious and call it meta-dramatic irony.

For example, the horror movie trope of splitting up to search the haunted house (or whatever) is derided because it should be apparent IN CHARACTER that splitting up is a bad idea and should not even be explained by fear (because being afraid should make them want to stick together).

When the inexperienced Juliet sees her "true love" Romeo dead, she lacks the audience's knowledge that their affair may have been fleeting, that she could fall in love with another person eventually etc. It seems perfectly in character to commit suicide.

Romeo is in a similar situation. He is entirely devoted to a world view of Romance, of huge highs and lows and grand gestures. He has recently fought to the death, killed. Therefor, suicide is a fitting end to the life story he has created.

Again, I stipulate that everyone's immersion is different, and all this may sound like hogwash.

 

[[.redacted]]

I'm gonna say pretty much all of Shakespeare.

And, in fact, every single text that has ever been analysed as part of an English qualification syllabus.

 

[Sunrider]

Iron Maiden. *ducking behind cover*

 

[Jonluw]

Yes, elitism is good is your opinion; and you're entitled to it. However, smart people are going to give you shit for it.

Doubtful, since ANYBODY worth a shit is an élitist himself. As Horace put it: "exegi monumentum aere perennius, regalique situ pyramidum altius". Does that sound humble to you, especially since he was right? When Michelangelo sculpted his first great relief, he sought to surpass none other than Phidias himself. He also called Titian a "mediocre drawer". Pure humility. Or, in the words of Goethe, "The capable delight in their deeds; only beggars are humble."

You know what the opposite of élitism is? Taking your sick child to a witch doctor instead of the best hospital you can afford. Only idiots ever use it in a negative context. We call that phenomenon "sour grapes".

So no, smart people, at least the honest ones, will agree with me. Trust me on that.

How exactly do you measure human worth, I wonder? Personally, I consider Humility to be one of the greatest personality traits, and any elitist lacks that trait. So to me elitists, by their very nature, are worthless. I consider most beggars (those who aren't dicks anyways) to be better persons than any elitist.
Also, allow me to inform you that "elitism" is spelled without the accent.

The difference between smart people and elitists is that smart people recognize abilities other than those of the field of their expertise, and appreciate those.
For example, I recognize that I am better at chemistry than some people in my class. I still don't think I am worth more than them though. They have other redeeming qualities. And even if they don't; with no education what so ever, they have potential to do work that's worth more than what I will do in the future.

From the look of things, you have recently begun your studies on a field of literature, and I will have you know that whatever profession you go on to from there - except for author - it will be worth less to the world than the work of the most simple construction worker. A construction worker, after all creates something of actual worth, and contributes to a country's GNP.

 

[hellthins]

About 3 days, and Shakesphere expects us to believe they end up dying for eachother out of true love

Congratulations, you now have a better understanding of Romeo and Juliet than your high school teacher. It's an accurate play about hormone filled teens. Mercutio isn't the only one aware of that fact, read it again and pay attention to the Friar. He thinks they're both pretty stupid as well. The speed of their romance is supposed to highlight their recklessness and youth, and since Shakespeare is prone to having one thing talk about another it probably also reflects on the Capulet's and the Montague's senseless family rivalry.

 

[Biffin Bridge]

Avatar. It was basically an extension of Titanic just... worse.

 

[4173]

Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Nothing happens!

Really? Even if personal growth doesn't count as "something," there are still two convoluted relationships that develop, and the Lydia and Wickham subplot. And the conflict between Elizabeth (and Jane) and their [mostly] awful parents.


edit: There is a difference between Shakespeare wanting us to believe R+J thought they were in true love, and Shakespeare wanting us to believe they were in true love.

 

[Iwata]

I'll just make mine short and say, all of modern art. I went to a Dali exhibit and in one room was a telephone with a lobster replacing the speaker.

What?! Are you fucking kidding me?

I'll throw the unbearable 2001: A Space Odissey out there as well. Most pretentious, boring movie I've ever seen.

 

[hellthins]

You are aware that ideas regarding love, courtship, marriage etc in the Renaissance were as different from today's as to be unrecognisable? Dante (who was married with children, btw) and Petrarch wrote their great works about one girl who looked at them once. That was the basis for some of the greatest collections of love poems ever written.

Shakespeare disdained and mocked the Petrarchan lover in his sonnets and even in Midsummer's Nights Dream. And Dante was creepy when he was writing about Beatrice, there really isn't two ways about that one. He was in loved with an idealized Beatrice not the real little girl.

 

[hawkeye52]

on actual art i would say any expressionist piece that sells for more then £50 since it may look nice and yes if you pick very nice colours then it could be incredibly good but i could have done most expressionist pieces back when i was 5 or 6 years old. One example which i find completely stupid that managed to get sold to an art gallery consists of a red rectangle with the middle cut out in the shape of another rectangle and that classified as art next to the simply amazing sculptures in the next room

 

[Royta]

Avatar: sure it looks nice but....that's it. the story was so cliched it was an insult to the word itself.

The Dark Knight: the Joker was okay, but the movie was blown up considerably due to Heath's death. The movie was decent, but the acting was subpar and Nolan's desperate try to make the Batman mythos realistic was just humerous.
What I hated mostly though was the fanboys it created. Being a comicbook fan, I cry even to this day when a fan comes and complains that the Joker and Batman in the comics aren't like they're "supposed to be" (aka like in TDK).
Go away please.

 

[Life_Is_A_Mess]

Avatar - Mostly eye candy.

Twelve years just for people to think: "uuuuuh shiny 0.0" when watching the movie.
Basically just for showing off the 3D graphics.

 

[For.I.Am.Mad]

Avatar. God Lord Jesus Buddha Allah, I hate that movie. Couldn't even finish it, I hated it so much.

 

[GodofCider]

The vast majority of the 'classics' in literature, I thought were rather awful.

 

[Iwata]

Elitism much?!

Oh, and don't ever use the term "smart people" because those words are the most relative, subjective, abstract descriptive words and are utterly helpless for communicating an idea. Show me your smart person and i will tell you to "prove it."

Fuck yeah, élitism. And proud of it. And the thing is, I am vindicated at every turn. People are barely qualified to comment on Jersey Shore; those same people commenting on Milton... yeah, sure.


And while smart may be subjective, dumb is universal.

Holy shit, you sound like a gigantic douchebag.

Not insulting you, mind you. Just stating the obvious.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Silas Marner. When we read this in high school, the class was so disinterested and the book was moving so slowly, that eventually the teacher gave up and showed us the movie instead. I'm not sure we got through all of that either.

 

[WinterOrbit]

I still haven't decided whether I should admire Gertrude Stein's Tender Buttons for the way it plays with language or reject it as meaningless word salad. Either way, I hate the work. Not all experimental literature can be successful.

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

Hmm. I'd try Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet before you completely write off Lynch. Mulholland Drive especially, besides being insightful about dreams and illusion, is pretty funny and thrilling. And weird, but not nearly as much as Eraserhead is.

 

[repeating integers]

How exactly do you measure human worth, I wonder? Personally, I consider Humility to be one of the greatest personality traits, and any elitist lacks that trait. So to me elitists, by their very nature, are worthless. I consider most beggars (those who aren't dicks anyways) to be better persons than any elitist.
Also, allow me to inform you that "elitism" is spelled without the accent.

No, I don't think I will. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elite

See? Embarrassing, isn't it? This is what I am getting at. Fundamentally ignorant people having the unspeakable arrogance to talk like this to their intellectual betters. I think some humble pie and an apology are in order. SHouldn't be a problem for you, since you love humility so much.

The difference between smart people and elitists is that smart people recognize abilities other than those of the field of their expertise, and appreciate those.
For example, I recognize that I am better at chemistry than some people in my class. I still don't think I am worth more than them though. They have other redeeming qualities. And even if they don't; with no education what so ever, they have potential to do work that's worth more than what I will do in the future.

I don't think I am worth more than a good baker or a good builder. However, right now, we are not talking about yeast content in sourdough or how to build girders, but about masterpieces of art and literature. In that field, my opinion counts more than many others'. When there is a thread about baking, I will gladly defer to any baker's superior wisdom. But since this thread is about the arts, you should award me the same kind of deference, should you not?

From the look of things, you have recently begun your studies on a field of literature, and I will have you know that whatever profession you go on to from there - except for author - it will be worth less to the world than the work of the most simple construction worker. A construction worker, after all creates something of actual worth, and contributes to a country's GNP.

First, you don't "have me know" anything, as has become embarrassingly evident in your feeble and misguided attempt to correct my spelling. Second, "cui bono?", what you call "actual worth", really isn't what should define the life of an academic. And finally, "recently"... let me put it like this. I had read several great works of European literature in their respective languages by the time I was 12. I have now been academically involved with the field since 2003. So no, unless you have at least a PhD or equivalent to your name in that field, I don't think I'll let you "have me know" jack shit.

You're going a bit far here, mate. This thread has really ticked you off, hasn't it?

Your posts are offending a lot of people and you're clearly in a bad mood. I'd recommend just leaving the thread before any more damage is caused to any party. If things keep on devolving like this, somebody's going to be put on probation.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I simply can't bear Tolkien's work. He created a fantastic universe and writes genuinely well. His stories, however, are horrible.

This a thousand times over. It always seemed like Tolkein was focusing on the least important thing in the story at any given moment. As one example, the death of a member of the fellowship will have a great impact on future portions of the novel and yet the death itself is mentioned in passing. I guess so he could make room for Tom Bombadil to sing another little ditty implying he knew more than anyone else all while absolutely refusing to be useful in any way.

 

[jaketaz]

SNIP

I believe the band name is Nightwish, and the song name is Amaranth. Please fix it, it makes your argument look very hypocritical - since you've clearly never listened to them before - so can't say they based their music on the DSotM album.

Who cares what their name is? I was talking about how their music goes, not what their name is, and I got that from listening to the song, not reading the title of it. And I clearly HAVE listened to them before, because I described technically what happened in the music, and the song is posted right there on the thread. What about this makes you assume I've never listened to them? And I absolutely did not "say they based their music on the DSotM album" - I guaranteed that they were influenced by it. Not because they copied it note-for-note because OBVIOUSLY that's not true, but because, like every other musician that hasn't been living under a rock for their entire adult lives, at some point they heard the music and were influenced in some way by it. The fact that there's keyboard ALONE proves that - hardly any popular rock music before Pink Floyd featured keyboards, and if they use any advanced recording techniques at all then they're also likely influenced. Pink Floyd pioneered many new recording techniques that I don't care enough to go into, just look it up on stupid Wikipedia if you don't believe me.

Seriously, who cares if Amaranth is the song name or the band name, I wasn't even talking about that. And since you can't think of any good counter-arguments you have to pick on a stupid error like that.

I agreed with the point you were making; I just thought that the name mistake made you look like a total hypocrite. Stop getting your pants in a twist and calm yourself... Feel free to apologise to me at any point as well

EDIT: Oh, and I meant influenced - I was writing in a rush

So I was arguing about Pink Floyd's position in the popular music canon and their similarities/differences compared with Nightwish, and you thought me getting their name wrong was hypocritical. Maybe I was just "writing in a rush". Yeah I heard what you said, twice, I just don't understand why that's hypocritical - these things are not related as far as I can tell. And I don't get why I'm supposed to apologize. But whatever, okay I guess we'll just go to smileys since the conversations broken down past intelligent debate, so here