No it isn’t!
This pitting is shallow and pedantic. Shallow and pedantic!
Shakespeare is boring.
2001 is boring.
Citizen Kane is boring.
iamnotbatman is a troll.
I was suspecting it in other threads but this one confirms it. No, I will not go into great intellectual research as to why as I now find this asshole boring.
This was part of my point in describing my dislike of ballet and my liking for modern dance in a previous post. In some ways, the discrepancy in my preferences makes no sense even to me: the two forms have a lot of similarities, require a lot of the same talents, and in some cases involve a lot of similar moves. One simply grabs me in a way that the other doesn’t.
I think everyone here understands that. But if you think that aesthetic responses are wholly rational, and can be encapsulated completely within the explanations and the exegeses of literary criticism, then it seems to me that you don’t understand you own occupation very well.
Most of my friends are academics, and some of them make a living in English and Film and LitCrit departments. And just about every single one of them can offer a deep and nuanced intellectual and critical assessment of a piece of work, and yet still find the work aesthetically unmoving. And this can be the case even when their critical assessment is actually positive. It is entirely possible to appreciate, and even to articulate, all the things that make a work of art superior or unusual or groundbreaking or whatever, and still not be touched by it.
In one of my American history courses i have taught, in the past, D.W. Griffith’s classic film Birth of a Nation. I’ve read just about all there is to read on this movie. I understand why it is significant, both as a piece of art and as a historical document, and it’s clear to me that Griffith himself had incredible talent as a filmmaker. I explain its significance to my students with enthusiasm, talking about its place in film history, and the effect that its release had on politics and race relations in the United States, and i show them scenes that demonstrate both Griffith’s revolutionary directing style and the movie’s political message. But despite all of this, sitting through the movie bores me. And this is not simply due to familiarity; it bored me the first and second times just about as much as it did the ninth and tenth times.
So, in your opinion, just how much engagement is required in order for a person’s opinion of it to be valid? Is there a particular number of hours? A specific number of attempts? In the other thread, Martini Enfield made clear that he had made multiple sorties into the world of Shakespeare, reading his plays and seeing them performed, and still found himself uninterested in the bard’s work. In that case, iamnotbatman basically told him that he was still ignorant, and essentially accused him of lying about how much effort he had put into an appreciation of Shakespeare.
See, here is a core problem with your whole position. If someone is asked their opinion about something, giving that opinion might not mean that they are looking for an argument about it.
I love discussing and debating stuff, but there are times when i don’t feel like a debate, and there are also subjects that i don’t feel like debating at particular times. I you ask me my opinion of a movie, and i tell you that i think it was boring, i may not be telling you that in order to try and convince you of the fact. I recognize that my opinion is just that: my opinion. While there are times when i’m happy to debate and discuss the merits of particular work of art or literature, and to support my opinion with particular observations and analysis, i feel no particular obligation to justify every opinion to you or to anyone else.
One problem here, i think, is that some people see every contradictory opinion as some sort of challenge to their own intellect or authority. If i like something, and someone else describes it as boring, there’s a tendency for me to get defensive and to try and justify or explain why i think it’s good. It’s something i try to curb, though, because i realize that these evaluations, while often rooted in fairly concrete analysis and examination, are also inherently subjective, especially at the level of describing enjoyment or pleasure or captivation. In a previous post (#139) iamnotbatman made a rather tortured and tortuous attempt to base aesthetics on objective grounds, but his post is so full of self-serving assumptions and spurious rationalizations that it’s hard to know what to do with. I remain unconvinced.
Isn’t that the point? There is no way to quantify.
But you want to see the dismisser to come across with an amount of respect commensurate with the art/artist in question. Since Shakespeare is one of the pillars of Western Culture, just saying “he sucks” shows a person to be a twit. Saying “I know he is a piller of Western Culture, but he doesn’t do it for me” (in some form or fashion) demonstrates the dismisser at least understand the context of what they are saying…
Did you even read my post?
The latter is pretty much Martini Enfield’s position in the other thread, and despite the fact that he appreciates the importance of Shakespeare and has spent time reading his works and watching his plays, when he says that Shakespeare still doesn’t do it for him, iamnotbatman persists in calling him ignorant and saying that he hasn’t put in sufficient effort.
As far as i can tell, not a single person here has said that simply saying Shakespeare sucks is a reasonable thing to do. You’re arguing against a position that no-one has taken.
I think the SDMB has an excellent money-making opportunity here.
Un-ban Collunsbury. Match him and iamnotbatman in a steel-cage condescension death match. Make it only visible to subscribers.
I’d re-up.
Clearly not closely enough.
I think there is a bit more to it than you do - “Shakespeare is boring” has so many possible interpretations that the person saying it should really expect to need to provide more qualification - but I really don’t have a dog in this hunt.
Am I allowed to find golf boring, or do I have to spend a month watching the golf channel, and reading books on golf? I already tried playing golf in high school, and I sucked at it. (Especially on the first day when my gym teacher got pissed at me for grabbing the wrong golf club)
Wrong golf club, eh?
Oh, you can say you read up on it, but either people still won’t believe you, or demand that you try again! Try again, dammit!
Yeah, but keep in mind, the OP of the thread in question was, in its entirety,
That’s not an invitation to engage in detailed exegesis, that’s “List stuff you don’t like!” In the context of that conversation, “I think X is boring,” is a perfectly valid contribution.
Thank you.