RANTING/VENTING MEGATHREAD 3.0

This one?

https://youtu.be/L_wv8hNCYK0

no, that's Seinfeld

Look, if you're going to compare things, at least compare things you are capable of understanding because you are fluent in the language and can pick up on any cultural references and such. If you aren't even fluent in the language, the criticism becomes a bit hollow because there's no getting around this- Part of it is based on ignorance.

As for cultural relativism vs. absolutism that the absolutists fail to acknowledge, is that this game can go on forever. Bash Kpop and point to some hipster band? Then someone will compare the hipster band to classic rock. Then someone will compare that to classical music. Or take Seinfeld, "TV is such lowbrow entertainment, why aren't you reading Moliere?" And I'm sure there's some snob out there who poo-poos Moliere. You know those types exist and how insufferable they are.

If I don't like something, I don't like something. I may have my opinions on high vs. low entertainment and what constitutes it, and whether I enjoy various incarnations of it, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it. I'm pretty sure everyone here has something exceedingly dumb that they enjoy and others dismiss. Heck, I enjoy watching 22 people bash themselves to a pulp while tossing around a ball. I enjoy seeing two human beings smash each other inside a metal cage. I enjoy watching cars go around in circles at high speeds. I enjoy watching 3 men hit each, poke, and smack each other and make various strange noises. I enjoy watching a cartoon mouse horribly brutalize a cartoon cat. I enjoy listening to a person suffering from mental illness imploring the listener to engage in acts of carnality with various bioforms over a synthesized track. I enjoy telling some 8-bit human caricature to jump at certain times on the heads of mycological animations and assorted testudines.

Who the eff am I to judge so harshly?

Firstly, your arguments about cultural relativism always involve accusing people on the other side of getting angry about stuff when they usually aren't. You don't have to be insufferable or judge things harshly to discuss the relative merits of art forms. You don't have to do it all the time either but sometimes it's useful and necessary.

Secondly, yes of course the game can 'go on forever' just as the human search for truth does.  But without having this kind of discussion there'd be no use for humanities subjects at universities. How can you decide what to put on a syllabus when no art form is better than another. How can a professor recommend books to read on a subject when all ideas on the subject are of equal value?

You're probably going to say we're just talking about comedy which isn't important in the great scheme of things but there are actually university courses on comedy writing. On which presumably they have to create a syllabus based on what is good or not.  As a professor on a course like that would you be claiming a sketch of a fat guy slurping from a crab's leg was as good as say the 4 Yorkshiremen Monty Python sketch? 

Firstly, your arguments about cultural relativism always involve accusing people on the other side of getting angry about stuff when they usually aren't.

I'm not the one griping on the internet about what TV programs my wife and inlaws are watching. So yeah, actually they ARE angry. Not to mention the constant rants on here.

As a professor on a course like that would you be claiming a sketch of a fat guy slurping from a crab's leg was as good as say the 4 Yorkshiremen Monty Python sketch?

But here's the real rub- Let's start comparing stuff like A Different World or Living Single or In Living Color to Seinfeld or Friends or Monty Python. What's "Great" in that case is much more defined by our cultural upbringing and what we're familiar with (on average).

I would start by saying you're making an apples and oranges comparison. You're comparing a written, scripted situational comedy show vs. a semi-reality personality show with comedic elements. Seinfeld has a plot structure, this really doesn't. They have completely different target audiences and serve completely different purposes in providing entertainment. It's a bit like comparing a 3 minute rock song to a 90 minute mass. Both music, but distinctly different audiences and goals. Wouldn't the more appropriate comparison be more something like MTV's Cribs or like, a comedic version of The Real World or something like that? Not to mention, people seem to be using this one program as a stand-in for all Korean TV. Survivor is a wildly possible show, as was The Apprentice. Same with American Idol. I mean, one might question why Western audiences derive pleasure from watching a host berate someone to the point of tears, humiliating them in front of an entire country. OR one could say that's not necessarily a representative example and that sort of show has a target audience that is looking for that sort of thing.

What I'd do is look at other shows of that type and see how well it did compared to them. I'd try and follow the Roger Ebert style of criticism which is "Did it meet the audience's expectations?"  Yes there is some consideration for the absolute, but that is when it starts to veer into "Why doesn't this exist to make me happy?" and you have to be careful. A good evaluation of content should be able to consider the target audience and what they are seeking.

I mean, you haven't even listed any evaluative criteria.

How can you decide what to put on a syllabus when no art form is better than another. How can a professor recommend books to read on a subject when all ideas on the subject are of equal value?

I'd say historical influence and their popularity amongst the people of the period would be a good place to start. That's not a commentary on whether such work was "good", only that it was significant and influential and widely consumed.

I'm not the one griping on the internet about what TV programs my wife and inlaws are watching. So yeah, actually they ARE angry. Not to mention the constant rants on here.

Yes, the constant rants in the 'ranting thread'   

So you're doing something much worse because you're griping about somebody griping about some piss poor Korean tv that his wife and inlaws watching in the 'Ranting/Venting Thread'.  What does that make you?  You're getting angry about someone getting 'angry' (which knowing Oglop, he isn't) because you fail time and time again to see things like a normal person. You continually come across as someone who is devoid of any self-reflection or sense of humour and whose aim it is to 'win' some pointless internet 'war' that only you are taking seriously day in day out.  When you say someone else is 'angry', you really are only talking about yourself.  Simplez.   

Yes, the constant rants in the 'ranting thread'   

So you're doing something much worse because you're griping about somebody griping about some piss poor Korean tv that his wife and inlaws watching in the 'Ranting/Venting Thread'.  What does that make you?  You're getting angry about someone getting 'angry' (which knowing Oglop, he isn't) because you fail time and time again to see things like a normal person. You continually come across as someone who is devoid of any self-reflection or sense of humour and whose aim it is to 'win' some pointless internet 'war' that only you are taking seriously day in day out.  When you say someone else is 'angry', you really are only talking about yourself.  Simplez.   

Dude, I actually offered some advice on how to deal with it, not just for him, but for anyone else who might be stuck watching TV they don't like. Also, it started out sympathetic enough. Then you get the people who explode at "OMG 'Tino is equating Sam to Seinfeld!!!"

It's a forum where people come and talk about stuff. Calm down Ronnie.

Dude, I actually offered some advice on how to deal with it, not just for him, but for anyone else who might be stuck watching TV they don't like.

That was actually another example of you not behaving like a normal person. Everyone, except you, could see the guy was just sounding off and wasn't looking for advice.

Mate I was just having a little rant in the ranting thread. I'm not frothing at the mouth (unlike someone in here)

But here's the real rub- Let's start comparing stuff like A Different World or Living Single or In Living Color to Seinfeld or Friends or Monty Python. What's "Great" in that case is much more defined by our cultural upbringing and what we're familiar with (on average).

I would start by saying you're making an apples and oranges comparison. You're comparing a written, scripted situational comedy show vs. a semi-reality personality show with comedic elements. Seinfeld has a plot structure, this really doesn't. They have completely different target audiences and serve completely different purposes in providing entertainment. It's a bit like comparing a 3 minute rock song to a 90 minute mass. Both music, but distinctly different audiences and goals. Wouldn't the more appropriate comparison be more something like MTV's Cribs or like, a comedic version of The Real World or something like that? Not to mention, people seem to be using this one program as a stand-in for all Korean TV. Survivor is a wildly possible show, as was The Apprentice. Same with American Idol. I mean, one might question why Western audiences derive pleasure from watching a host berate someone to the point of tears, humiliating them in front of an entire country. OR one could say that's not necessarily a representative example and that sort of show has a target audience that is looking for that sort of thing.

What I'd do is look at other shows of that type and see how well it did compared to them. I'd try and follow the Roger Ebert style of criticism which is "Did it meet the audience's expectations?"  Yes there is some consideration for the absolute, but that is when it starts to veer into "Why doesn't this exist to make me happy?" and you have to be careful. A good evaluation of content should be able to consider the target audience and what they are seeking.

I mean, you haven't even listed any evaluative criteria.

Yes of course, no two art forms are the same and there'll always be reasons why one kind of person might enjoy one more than another. My aim was just to get you to admit that it is sometimes useful or necessary to compare the quality of different art forms and agree with the principle that one piece of art can be objectively better than another. There's no point in discussing criteria until we get to that stage.   

I'd say historical influence and their popularity amongst the people of the period would be a good place to start. That's not a commentary on whether such work was "good", only that it was significant and influential and widely consumed

Do you think it'd be a good idea for people to study 50 shades of Grey and the Davinci Code on future Eng lit courses, for example? 

Do you think it'd be a good idea for people to study 50 shades of Grey and the Davinci Code on future Eng lit courses, for example?

I can't imagine any work featuring lurid tales of lust becoming a literary classic...

just so i'm getting this right... you're saying 50 shades of grey will become a future literary classic that will be studied in future lit university courses?

just so i'm getting this right... you're saying 50 shades of grey will become a future literary classic that will be studied in future lit university courses?

I think he either misunderstood my point, or doesn't know much about English literature.

just so i'm getting this right... you're saying 50 shades of grey will become a future literary classic that will be studied in future lit university courses?

Ever hear of Nabokov?

Yeah you didn't answer the question though

Ever hear of Nabokov?

Not sure I get your point here. Lolita was about sexual perversion and was considered a classic novel, so 50 shades of Grey should be too? is this really your argument?  Even by your standards that's pretty nonsensical.

At The Eng Lit faculty meeting

'Is Moby Dick on the syllabus this year?'
Yes of course, it's a classic.
'How about 'Jaws', that's another book about someone chasing a big sea animal
Good point, stick it on the list. 

A student of mine chose Lolita for whatever reason for her lit. portfolio. It felt a bit awkward tbh.

Not sure I get your point here. Lolita was about sexual perversion and was considered a classic novel, so 50 shades of Grey should be too? is this really your argument?  Even by your standards that's pretty nonsensical.

At The Eng Lit faculty meeting

'Is Moby Dick on the syllabus this year?'
Yes of course, it's a classic.
'How about 'Jaws', that's another book about someone chasing a big sea animal
Good point, stick it on the list. 

50 Shades will be seen as important literature.

It is a great example of a commercially successful early digital self-published work, with its roots in fan-fic.

I’ve never read it, or seen the movie, but I know enough about it to make the above statement.

Not sure I get your point here. Lolita was about sexual perversion and was considered a classic novel, so 50 shades of Grey should be too? is this really your argument? 

It wasn't considered a classic at the time. It was considered obscene. It's classified as a work of erotic literature. Sure it deals with social taboos, but then so does 50 Shades. Who knows what time will do? I doubt when Lolita was first published, people expected it to be in English Lit classes. Now it is.

And I'm sure we've all read some "classics" in school that we thought were crap and poorly written.

History is not under our control or our standards. Works that would have never even been considered even 20 years ago are now being added in the name of diversity. Who knows what forces and trends will have materialized 50 years after 50 Shades?

Again, we have the recurring trend that so many on this site seem to fall into- Just because YOU don't find it interesting or significant or great, doesn't mean it isn't. I mean, I heard excerpts read on the radio and thought "Yawn". But I also recognize that just because I don't find it significant, doesn't mean that it isn't significant.

Ever notice how the people who deem stuff "great" or "deep" or "higher art" invariably put what they are into in the list?

It wasn't considered a classic at the time. It was considered obscene. It's classified as a work of erotic literature. Sure it deals with social taboos, but then so does 50 Shades. Who knows what time will do? I doubt when Lolita was first published, people expected it to be in English Lit classes. Now it is.

And I'm sure we've all read some "classics" in school that we thought were crap and poorly written.

History is not under our control or our standards. Works that would have never even been considered even 20 years ago are now being added in the name of diversity. Who knows what forces and trends will have materialized 50 years after 50 Shades?

Again, we have the recurring trend that so many on this site seem to fall into- Just because YOU don't find it interesting or significant or great, doesn't mean it isn't. I mean, I heard excerpts read on the radio and thought "Yawn". But I also recognize that just because I don't find it significant, doesn't mean that it isn't significant.

Ever notice how the people who deem stuff "great" or "deep" or "higher art" invariably put what they are into in the list?

You miss the point (as usual)

You said one way to judge the quality of literature was to look at how popular it was at the time. I said some works widely considered to be poor quality are/were very popular. You said some popular works were considered low quality at the time and were later considered high quality. That may be true but it's not a strong argument for advocating popularity as a good measure of quality is it.   Because there are still a lot of works that were popular at the time that are still considered poor quality. None of this has anything to do with what I like or dislike either, so don't try to go down that route.

Just gonna stick my toe in this puddle for fun.

I  am not a fan of 'Lolita', but just because that and '50 Shades' deals with taboos doesn't put them on the same level.

'Classics' is to vague of a term and they are broken into completely different categories (i.e. Romeo and Juliet is not a classic in the same way or for the same reason as The Great Gatsby is. Or Moby Dick in the same way as Pride and Prejudice). To me 'Classics' have always been novels that used English language in a new way or as a way of using the language to illustrate some part of society.

A Farewell to Arms is considered an American classic, but I hate it and I think the writing is absolutely horrible. BUT, it represented the mind of a WWI soldier in the Italian Army. 50 Shades did nothing new with the writing, and failed to accurately capture one of the major draws of the book (BDSM). It was riddle with problems

It may be my own bias, but Lolita would not have been so scandalous or obscene had he not managed to capture the mind of a pedo so well (to the point that I'm kinda grossed out by the author). The book is so uncomfortable to read that I still haven't finished, and still wonder if I will even bother. If the subject matter was less disturbing, the writing of it would still stand out. I cannot say the same of 50 Shades. It is written in the style of a YA Novel, but for an entirely adult audience. Accessible, sure, but there's a lot of books like that.

And yes, 50 Shades will likely be talked about down the line. But not for the excellency of the literature, but because of the commercial success, and probably the fact that it stemmed from fanfiction. They'll study it in the same way Film students might study Hallmark movies and Jaws, so that they can try to recreate the same financial success.

I also want to agree that there are a lot of book that have every right to be considered 'great' and 'high art', but 50 Shades is NOT one. And to argue that it is, just seems silly.

TL;DR Are 'Classics' the be all and end all of literature and reading? No. Is 50 Shades a good choice for any kind of academic learning? No, not really. Might as well read the source material.

Agreed