iamnotbatman is a pseudo-intellectual twat.

[The_Hamster_King]

@mhendo

When i say that ballet is boring, and Ailey is not, i’m simply expressing a preference.

“I don’t like ballet” is a preference.

“Ballet is boring” is a judgment.

If you don’t like ballet, just say “I don’t like ballet.”

[Rumor_Watkins]

@The_Hamster_King

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.

so it’s not possible that you just don’t like it? that you just find it boring?

holy fuck. there is nothing in existence that has universal appeal.

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.”

yeup, wandering back into pseudo-intellectual, i’m better than you because I get haute culture land.

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.

“asthetic frame” ? give me a fucking break. or give me another few gallons of pretense. boredom is predominately an emotional reaction. not everyone has the time to sit around and ponder why they have certain reactions to certain types of art, or, in your parlance, develop a particular aesthetic frame.

[iamnotbatman]

I was about to respond to Mhendo’s and Boyo’s recent posts, but Hamster, you’ve articulated my position so well I don’t feel I have to. This is what I meant when I said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Now I can go to sleep.

ETA: BTW all of this repetitious use of “pseudo-intellectual” in place of an argument is itself pseudo-intellectual. You just throw the phrase around like it’s a weapon.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@iamnotbatman

ETA: BTW all of this repetitious use of “pseudo-intellectual” in place of an argument is itself pseudo-intellectual. You just throw the phrase around like it’s a weapon.

how meta of you.

[mhendo]

@The_Hamster_King

“I don’t like ballet” is a preference.

“Ballet is boring” is a judgment.

You’re drawing a spurious distinction here. The difference you posit is only a difference if you’re too stupid to understand that many of these sorts of aesthetic judgments are inherently subjective.

@iamnotbatman

I was about to respond to Mhendo’s and Boyo’s recent posts, but Hamster, you’ve articulated my position so well I don’t feel I have to. This is what I meant when I said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Now I can go to sleep.

You still appear to have no understanding of the difference between a positive assertion and a normative judgment. By all means go to sleep, though. It might do you some good.

[Autolycus]

This thread is boring.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Autolycus

This thread is boring.

please tell me about your aesthetic frame so i can better understand your judgmental comments.

[Boyo_Jim]

@The_Hamster_King

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!

Perhaps I can give you a similar example, A Tale of Two Cities by Dickens (or as Michael Steele calls it, War and Peace :p). I read it in my youth, and I read it again much later when I returned to college to finish a degree after having dropped out nearly twenty years before. Anyway, I had to take a literature course, and this was one of the assignments, and the TA was simply gushing over it.

I (personally) found it rather tedius and boring, and I asked the TA in class why this was a great book. And she gave a credible answer – it was a “first” in many ways, and it broke new ground for writers who followed, and “raised the bar” for aspiring writers.

And I agree with everything she said, except that it is a great book as a piece of literature. I think it is a WAS a great book as a piece of literature in it’s time, and it IS a great book as a milestone of history, but it is not now a great piece of literature. It is essentially obsolete. So many writers since have surpassed that bar, and the conventions of writing have become far more economical, and to my mind, far more enjoyable. FYI, I thought pretty much the same of another book in the same class, Silas Marner.

I think much the same could be said about Shakespeare, though I’m not one who will say it.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Boyo_Jim

Perhaps I can give you a similar example, A Tale of Two Cities by Dickens (or as Michael Steele calls it, War and Peace :p). I read it in my youth, and I read it again much later when I returned to college to finish a degree after having dropped out nearly twenty years before. Anyway, I had to take a literature course, and this was one of the assignments, and the TA was simply gushing over it.

I (personally) found it rather tedius and boring, and I asked the TA in class why this was a great book. And she gave a credible answer – it was a “first” in many ways, and it broke new ground for writers who followed, and “raised the bar” for aspiring writers.

And I agree with everything she said, except that it is a great book as a piece of literature. I think it is a WAS a great book as a piece of literature in it’s time, and it IS a great book as a milestone of history, but it is not now a great piece of literature. It is essentially obsolete. So many writers since have surpassed that bar, and the conventions of writing have become far more economical, and to my mind, far more enjoyable. FYI, I thought pretty much the same of another book in the same class, Silas Marner.

I think much the same could be said about Shakespeare, though I’m not one who will say it.

that is an interesting aesthetic frame you have there. please tell me more as i smell my own fart and conjure up memories of roses.

[Boyo_Jim]

I apparently not well enough educated to understand that comment.

[Guinastasia]

@iamnotbatman

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.

:rolleyes:

Exactly. Take your own advice.

[iamnotbatman]

@Boyo_Jim

So many writers since have surpassed that bar, and the conventions of writing have become far more economical, and to my mind, far more enjoyable. FYI, I thought pretty much the same of another book in the same class, Silas Marner.

I think much the same could be said about Shakespeare, though I’m not one who will say it.

Do you realize that Shakespeare is considered to be one of the most economical writers in the history of literature?

[Guinastasia]

One wonders if the OP would take the time to appreciate Hogg.

[Boyo_Jim]

@iamnotbatman

Do you realize that Shakespeare is considered to be one of the most economical writers in the history of literature?

I wasn’t referring to Shakespeare, I was referring to Dickens.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@iamnotbatman

Do you realize that Shakespeare is considered to be one of the most economical writers in the history of literature?

Uh-huh.

Shakespeare’s first plays were written in the conventional style of the day. He wrote them in a stylised language that does not always spring naturally from the needs of the characters or the drama.[1] The poetry depends on extended, sometimes elaborate metaphors and conceits, and the language is often rhetorical—written for actors to declaim rather than speak.

sounds real fucking economical. like most poets strive to be…

[gladtobeblazed]

iamnotbatman simply hasn’t studied boredom sufficiently to appreciate when something is boring.

[Boyo_Jim]

No no no. ALL boredom is based on ignorance. And ALL statements proclaiming boredom are arguments that the subject is universally boring to all right thinking people, of which there are almost none, since only ignorant people are bored by anything, and if they were right thinking they would educate themselves out of their boredom.

Rinse. Repeat.

[Frank]

@iamnotbatman

Do you realize that Shakespeare is considered to be one of the most economical writers in the history of literature?

This caught my eye. Considered by whom? In other words, cite?

[iamnotbatman]

@mhendo

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.”

You are oversimplifying the nature of subjective criticism. There is a true dichotomy between the following two types of subjective criticism:

1. I don’t think the color red is pretty

and

2. Shakespeare is a terrible prose stylist

In the case of 1) the criticism is entirely subjective, and beyond objective reproach. In the case of 2), however, the subjective criticism is inextricably intertwined with a number of objective implications, all of which need to be addressed in order for the the statement to be taken seriously. For example, Shakespeare excels on almost any quantifiable metric of prose styling: economy, variety of meaning, meter. There is also the subjective “experience” of reading economic prose, dense-rich with multiple meanings and allusions, with rhyme and meter and a tongue-lapping flow. You can say such an experience is entirely subjective – completely immune to any critical dissection of all of the objective components that go into it – but to do so would be myopic. There are certainly some irreducibly subjective aspects to 2), but to ignore the rest is to throw the baby out with the bathwater; Shakespeare is, by many objective measures, a fantastic prose stylist. So while 2) could be call subjective criticism, there are many reasons why 2) should be treated with more skepticism than 1). 2) requires some objective justification in order to be taken seriously. In particular, 2) is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary explanation.

I likewise contend that:

3. Shakespeare is boring

is not a purely subjective criticism, like 1) is. It has objective logical dependencies, one of which, for example, might involves a form of 2). For example, if Shakespeare is a great prose stylist, then how is Shakespeare boring? Does the person find great prose style boring? Or does the person believe 2)? This sort of logical dependency renders a statement like 3) not wholly subjective. In order for a statement like 3) to be self-consistent, the author of it is either to some degree ignorant, or has an extraordinarily unique sense of aesthetics. An explanation for the dissonance between this person’s aesthetic sense and the myriad objective measures by which Shakespeare’s writing could be called ‘rich with interesting’ is really called for here.

[iamnotbatman]

@Frank

This caught my eye. Considered by whom? In other words, cite?

I’m not sure how to cite this. I gather my assessment from being an enthusiast who reads many books on the subject. The puns alone are considered some of the richest in terms creating a denseness of meaning. He also has an extremely economical way of describing in one line what others require an entire paragraph to describe. Check out his sonnets. As an exercise I tried to re-write the first few of them myself (ignoring meter or rhyme), and for the life of me I couldn’t come even remotely close to replicating the meaning in even twice the number of words. If you like, take my declaration with a grain of salt. But I think it is true.