I don’t believe I said that I found the film boring, only that I don’t “get” all the adoration for it. The purpose of the thread was not to invite discussion or debate. Only a complete prat would come in and shit all over it, as apparently you both have.
If you think that “Shakespeare is boring” and “Einstein was a terrible physicist” are equivalent statements, equally amenable to positive conclusions based on evidence, i suggest that it’s you who are too ignorant to be involved in this discussion.
As Rumor_Watkins suggests, if the statement about Shakespeare were something along the lines of “Shakespeare contributed nothing to the canon of English literature,” or even “Shakespeare was not a talented writer,” you might have a point about the person’s ignorance. But Martini Enfield never denied Shakespeare’s influence, nor his contribution to the canon, nor even his talent. We’re talking about an aesthetic judgment here, something separate from questions of significance or influence or even talent, and all you had to offer in response was essentially, “Well, if you feel that way, the most likely explanation is that you’re still ignorant on the subject and haven’t put a good-faith effort into exploring it fully.”
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. I do in fact think they are roughly equivalent statements, yes. And I assure you I am ignorant of neither Shakespeare nor Einstein.
Let me again quote from another poster:
Saying “Shakespeare is boring” does indeed generally imply that one thinks Shakespeare is (something along the lines of) stupid and worthless. This is in the same evidential position as is “Einstein was a terrible physicist.” And this is indeed what Martini Enfield said. He didn’t say “I happen to be bored by Shakespeare,” he said “I consider Shakespeare to be boring for the most part.” And “I think “Boring” is a perfectly acceptable opinion of Shakespeare’s works.” He is saying “Shakespeare’s works are boring.” I think this reflects a gross lack of humility.
What are you, the Anti-Dio? Obviously “boring” is a subjective description relative to the party(ies) that make that statement not some pronouncement for all of humanity.
So would you agree that when someone says “Shakespeare’s works are boring” it tells us more about the speaker than the plays?
Calculus is boring. It is neither stupid nor worthless. Look it up in a dictionary, I’ll bet you won’t find “boring” associated with either word.
Wow, you know the word encomium but you don’t know what boring means.
I’ve never seen a better definition of pseudo-intellectual.
Never said you were ignorant of either of them. Your ignorance appears to be at a different level.
The fact that you keep insisting on this does not make it true. All it demonstrates is your own hubris, your own sense that it is your standards that do (or should) dictate how others make their aesthetic evaluations.
Yeah. I’m sure some nitwit somewhere gave BloodRayne four stars…
You may find calculus boring, but calculus is not boring universally. I (and many others) find calculus fun and interesting.
mhendo – you, and others here, seem to be pretending to not understand how saying “x is boring” can in any way imply a criticism. This is being purposefully obtuse.
Yes, and they’re a delicious dessert with a shot of Lord Calvert to serve after a jumbo bologna main course.
Personally, I think iamnotbatman makes a fair amount of sense, and, while he may be pretentious, he expresses himself clearly, makes valid points, and offers some good arguments in support of his propositions. Why that deserves a pitting while there are dozens of posters here who offer nothing but crap post after post is beyond me.
Has all this really come down to whether saying “x is boring” means “x is boring to me” (which no one is offended by) or “x is not something anyone should be interested in?” (which everyone seems to agree could be seen as offensive or indicative of ignorance) I think the former.
When I say “Ballet is boring” I don’t mean it has no artistic value, or that other people shouldn’t find delight in it. I would also acknowledge that if I took some time to understand it more, I, too, might find it delightful. “Ballet is boring” is simply a shorthand way of saying all that. I’d probably phrase it differently, but do I have to so spell it out so carefully: “The movements and music of ballet is probably of great interest to many poeple, but I am not sufficiently educated for it to hold my interest.” I’d rather say it’s boring. Same with NASCAR.
Perhaps if you spent some time studying LOLcat-speak, you might develope an appreciation for it?
I have a great appreciation for it. I also note that I know very few people above the age of 14 who use it the way she did without a sense of irony.
I agree, but it doesn’t necessarily tell the us that the speaker finds it boring out of ignorance.
Procrustus – the problem is that some people would have it both ways.
While you find that “Ballet is boring” is simply a shorthand way of saying:
“The movements and music of ballet is probably of great interest to many poeple, but I am not sufficiently educated for it to hold my interest.”
Others here seem to use “Ballet is boring” as a shorthand for:
“The movements and music of ballet is probably of great interest to many people, but I, who am sufficiently educated for it to hold my interest, still say it’s boring”
They seem to be using the latter of your definitions rather than the former.
Sure. Why not? Or, at the very least, it tells us as much about the speaker as it does about the plays.
The devil, however, is in the details. We, as human beings, evaluate statements like this in order to make judgments of our own. We evaluate the statements based on a whole bunch of criteria, including (but not limited to): our knowledge of the speaker; our prior knowledge of the thing being evaluated; any explanation given by the speaker for his or her evaluation; and the broader context of the particular discussion we’re having at the time.
Take just the first of my criteria: our knowledge of the speaker. If ten people i know describe a movie to me, they might use a whole bunch of different descriptors, ranging from high praise to complete dismissal. Part of what i do, in assessing their evaluations and putting them to use, is place them in the context of what i know about those people. I know that i almost never agree with Person A about movies, so when he describes the movie as “boring” or “stupid,” this doesn’t necessarily mean that i will share his opinion. Person B and i, on the other hand, have very similar taste in movies, so if she describes it as “boring” i will probably give more weight to her assessment.
If they both describe it as “boring,” of course, that leaves me with something of a conundrum, which i can try to resolve by moving beyond this first order of evaluation in order to consider things about the movie itself. For example, maybe the movie is a post-apocalyptic sci-fi story, and i generally like those types of films, so i might be more willing, in this case, to discount Person B’s assessment and see it anyway. I also sometimes watch movies for different reasons, depending on my mood, and if Person B says, “It’s probably fine if you just want a formulaic shoot-up movie, but don’t expect too much in the way of character development or original story arc,” then that might weigh into my expectation of what the word “boring” means, in the context of this movie.
It’s the same reason that i prefer some movie reviewers to others: some are more in line with my own sense of what constitutes a good movie, or at least the criteria for an informative review. All this is based on the understanding that evaluations like this are inherently subjective, and that every time someone makes an aesthetic judgment they are, in fact, giving us their own opinion and not articulating a universal or objective truth.
I pretend no such thing.
If i describe something as boring, it’s not just implying a criticism; it IS a criticism. But it’s a subjective one, based on my own aesthetic preferences and tastes and criteria. Those preferences and tastes and criteria might not be the same as yours, so when you say, “Well, i disagree; it’s not boring,” i’ll simply shrug and say, “Okay.”
Also, as Procrustus notes quite accurately, and as i have been arguing all along, calling something boring is not the same as saying that it has no value, that it requires no talent, or that everyone should feel the same way about it that i do. It is a shorthand for my own feelings on the subject. In some cases, as Procrustus also notes, it might also mean that, for whatever reason, it does not engage me sufficiently to spend time becoming further acquainted with it. But that, itself, is a perfectly reasonable criteria for calling something boring. If something is so unengaging to me that i do not even have the desire to pursue it further, then it’s perfectly reasonable for me to describe it as boring.
Procrustus’s example of ballet is actually quite apposite here. I went out with a woman for a couple of years who grew up dancing ballet, who was a part-time ballet instructor of children, and who had season tickets to see the Sydney Ballet every year. She took me to some performances, and would also talk to me about the history of ballet, and about the particular performances that we saw. I went because i like classical music, and because it was something for us to do together. I also found her discussions and explanations fascinating, and enjoyed the fact that she could nudge me during the performance, and then later on tell me that the dancer had made a crucial mistake right at that moment.
But despite all of this, every time we went to the ballet i was looking at my watch before the show was half over, and wishing that they would get on with it already. I simply find it boring; it does not grab me in the way that (i think) art should grab someone. And, despite the fact that i consider myself intellectually curious, and found my girlfriend’s discussions of ballet interesting, this didn’t change the fact that the performance itself was not interesting to me. It’s possible that, with further study or commitment, i might have come to appreciate ballet, but i doubt it; i speak from a certain self-knowledge here, an understanding of whether something is amenable to my persistence.
And yet it’s not as if i dislike all dance performances. I am, for example, quite a fan of some modern dance, and have seen the famous Ailey and Ailey 2 dance companies on more than one occasion. Those works do speak to me, despite the fact that i’m really not at all knowledgeable about the history or the techniques of the dance itself.
Do i think modern dance is objectively better than ballet? No. I appreciate that they require similar talents and artistic abilities, and that plenty of people prefer ballet to modern dance. When i say that ballet is boring, and Ailey is not, i’m simply expressing a preference. I might be criticizing ballet, but i’m criticizing it as an art form that does not hold interest for me, not as an art form that should hold no interest for anyone, or that has no merit.
No one is using this definition except you, and you are arguing against it. Most people would use a definition closer to, “The movements and music of ballet is probably of great interest to many people, but I, who am sufficiently educated to understand it, personally find it boring.”
And in case this is not sufficiently clear to you, this means they are personally bored by it, not that they think everyone else should be bored by it.
Well, Shakespeare’s plays are amenable to a wide variety of different types of engagement. They’re interesting in lots of different ways. So, while it’s certainly possible that someone *might *have tried a wide range of strategies to engage with them and ultimately gave up only after multiple failures, it’s kind of strange. Particularly since so many other people are able to be entertained by them.
It’s much more likely that they were just put off by the archaic language. Which is fine. There’s nothing wrong with saying “Meh, it was too hard to understand. I just couldn’t get into it.”
People don’t like to say that though. They don’t like to admit that they couldn’t get into a work. So they displace the fault onto the work itself: “Meh, Shakespeare is boring.”
Now, if someone really understands Shakespeare and thinks he’s boring … well, that’s really interesting! I’d love to hear them explain why! Not because I want to prove them wrong, but because it would be fascinating to see how Shakespeare’s plays fail within their particular aesthetic frame.
For example, I love Mr. Plinkett’s dissection of the narrative failures of the Star Wars prequels. If someone could do that with *Hamlet *and make a good case of it … that would be amazingly entertaining!