OK, I respect the ‘no right of reply’ thing, within the constraints of that thread, however, I want to respond to the Dr Seuss thing, so this thread exists as a place to defend the sacred cows lined up for slaughter in that one.
so…
I think this conclusion is only supportable by cherry-picking. Yes, Fox in Socks and (especially) Wocket in my Pocket are contrived bits of nonsense, but if I pick out, say, The Sneeches, Yertle the Turtle, and even The Cat in the Hat, the picture is vastly different.
It’s not nearly as easy as it looks to produce entertaining rhyme, as well as being not as easy as it looks to draw cartoons that are consistent from one panel to the next - you might not like the style, but it’s unfair to trash it as third rate.
If you maintain that it’s really so easy to do, why not try it for yourself? I know the ‘well, you couldn’t do any better’ argument isn’t always pertinent, however I think it is here - you seem to be arguing that Seuss didn’t do anything talented, remarkable or beyond that achievable by the ordinary man. OK. Prove it - show us what you can do that is at least as good as one of the above named titles.
I want to take exception to the idea that Jonathan Winters isn’t funny. Now, admittedly, there are times when he isn’t funny at all. That’s usually when someone else is scripting him…for instance, he was about as funny as a turd as Mork’s son Mearth. But the man is the Robin Williams of his generation, capable of making up an entire show on the spur of the moment. They say the hardest thing to do is to make a comedian laugh. I’ve seen Winters shut down other professional comedians.
Well said. It’s not just a generational thing, even though JW was the king in the 50’s and 60’s, especially on the Jack Paar and Dean Martin shows where he had free rein to invent and “go crazy.” That can’t be under as much control as sitcoms seem to require so trying to capture the essence of Winters in a writer’s room is fool’s play. The key word in the post from jayjay is isn’t. Jonathan Winters was, at one time, funnier than anybody.
To people who say they don’t like sports because they’re nothing but a bunch of grown men getting paid huge amounts of money to play a child’s game: Do you watch TV or movies? If so you’re watching a bunch of grown men and women getting paid huge amounts of money to play dress-up and make-believe.
Anything not immediately connected to survival can be made to sound stupid with a suitably snarky phrase. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean anyone who does is an idiot. Or a phony.
I don’t see the point of sports, but that doesn’t mean that I think anyone who does like them is an idiot or a phony. Show me where anyone in the other thread who mentioned sports said anything like that.
For the record, I think that many actors, including my favorites, are also vastly overpaid. But my taxes aren’t (generally) used to build places for them to perform, either.
What I do find annoying is that someone who attends games with their face or body painted in team colors is portayed on TV as a “loyal fan” but people who attend science fiction conventions in costume or makeup are ridiculed as social misfits who need to get a life.
Er, a fake what? I happen to like the possibilities opened up by studio-produced sounds, even when those sounds cannot easily be reproduced in any meaningfully “live” way. Does this mean I’m not a real human or something?
In High School I read Hamlet while in “in school suspension” just out of curiosity, to see if I could see what the fuss was supposed to be about. And I saw what all the fuss was about. To my suprise, and pleasure, I was completely hooked, chills down the spine at times and everything.
Re-reading it, I see some of the weaknesses critics talk about. But looking past the plot holes, etc, there is so much to take away from the play that I just can’t imagine someone dismissing it as hackwork.
Ya big phony! I like them too—some of them. I really only like about 5-6. I have little use for Lear, but realize it must be fantastic to play. I am meh about Romeo and Juliet–because I always found the lovers to be not star-crossed, but stupid. But 12th night, Macbeth, Hamlet, Richard the III, and Much Ado About Nothing (not to mention Merchant) are all quite good.
I love Dr Seuss and think he was brilliant for much of his work.
I also like poetry–not beat poetry or smash or whatever it’s called. Open mike night anywhere fills me with dismay, but sometimes a poem can say what a narrative cannot. There is no beating it then.
I believe there is a reading according to which that was quite intentional on Shakespeare’s point–that he was, in a sense, lampooning certain conventions of the day concerning romantic love.
Not that that necessarily makes the play any better of course…
I was pretty shocked to see Shakespeare listed as well. Yes, there are plot holes and jokes that fall flat, but when you consider the plays as a whole, these faults hardly matter. His plays are brilliant! When you combine that with the fact that Shakespeare has contributed more than any other author to the English language . . . Wow. Tough crowd.
Citizen Kane was not Armageddon, but neither was it dull. I thought it was a very rich, well-constructed movie, which you could watch twenty times and still not get all the nuances.
And I like the taste of Starbucks coffee. It’s just that my stomach can’t take it anymore.
Huh? my point wasn’t that everyone should like sports. It was that a specific argument used against sports–athletes are playing a child’s game–is insulting and, if the arguer is a movie fan, easily turned against him or her.
Some of my seventh grade students have actually laughed out loud at some of the jokes and antics in Twelfth Night. But they are all a bunch of phonies, so that explains it.
Also, saying something like “all poetry sucks” seems rather… I don’t know… ignorant? There’s a lot of poetry out there. Some of it sucks, some of it doesn’t. Maybe you haven’t read the right ones yet.
Really, I think we do a disservice to a lot of children by forcing Shakespeare on them in grade school. I remember hating Shakespeare when I was younger. I found it impenetrable and boring.
It wasn’t until I came back to Shakespeare years later that I discovered how beautiful it really was. I just had to shake that old preconception that Shakes was boring and overwrought
I think the reason that this person of limited experience believes it is hackneyed, is that he has seen the archetype repeated so oft. He looks at it with jaundiced and modern eye… a person of little historical appreciation. He would assume tear down a century old church for a new mall.
Hamlet is the first. Every angst driven play/screenplay with a twist that has come after owes homage.
I like them too—some of them. I really only like about 5-6. I have little use for Lear, but realize it must be fantastic to play. I am meh about Romeo and Juliet–because I always found the lovers to be not star-crossed, but stupid. But 12th night, Macbeth, Hamlet, Richard the III, and Much Ado About Nothing (not to mention Merchant) are all quite good.