Do you sometimes feel that you level with a story so much that you get it? Not just understand it, but truly *get *it?
I’ve seen implications of it in some discussions on this board. I remember one discussion about the Simpsons in particular. The discussions was whether Family Guy was equal to the Simpsons or not, and one doper responded (paraphrased) that if you truly get what the Simpsons is about, you’d see what cheap copy Family Guy is. Similarily, on a discussion about Oz, one doper said that Oz is a great show if you *get *it.
The implications about ‘getting’ a story seem to be about understanding an underlying subtext that is consistent with the entire story and which is also an obvious result of the writer’s ambition.
And if you think about it, jokes are not universal. There are barriers between generations, cultures and so forth. To understand a given joke, you need to first understand the context that it’s given in. And with that in mind, is it then really farfetched that a story can be presented in such a fashion that you’re not entirely aware of the essence of the context, the idea of the story, even though you understand the basic idea, story line and so on?
I use Buffy as a good example of getting or not getting a show.
If you dismiss it because you “don’t get” a show that’s just about a girl who fights monsters, then you pretty much are an idiot to me. But if you are able to articulate what you don’t like after understanding what the show is going for then, Hey! Different strokes buddy.
If someone can say truthfully “I get it. I just don’t like it.” I’m fine.
I remember an interview with Matt Groening (no cite, sorry) in which he stated that the underlying message of “the Simpsons” concerns alcoholism and it’s effects on the family: Homer is a functional alcoholic who has never hit rock bottom & therefore has nevre had to face his problem. Thus, he scrapes along through life and is dragging his family down with him.
My own take on “the Simpsons”: It’s suggested time & again that Homer isn’t really that stupid, and can be remarkably smart & resourceful (his “beer baron” scheme, he was right about the comet burning up in the atmosphere before hitting Springfield), but very early on in his life that he got sucked into a lifestyle of guzzling beer & watching television, and is therefore living way below his potential. His own hostile reactions to his family are the crux for most stories (he is resentful & unsupportive when Marge wants to do something other than housework/ he’s envious of Bart, who reminds him of himself before ‘life’ dragged him down/ he feels threatened by Lisa for her smarts and her abilitiy to stand up for what she believes (something he can’t do).
To me, “The Family Guy” seems too much like a generic sitcom - shopworn stock characters & situations that just seemed slapped together and going through the motions of sitcom inanities.
I do think that truly great shows do have a subtext or underlying theme to them: “Cheers” was about how dating can be a power struggle, “Law & Order” is about the slow, labrynthine process by which the American justice system works, “All in the Family” was about the generation gap. Really great show also have some basis in reality (even if not every single detail is real) and do something new that hasn’t been seen before.
A parody that had already been done, to varying degrees, on shows like Married…With Children, Get A Life and The Simpsons itself, which is why people accuse it of being a pale imitation, I suspect.
So if I’ve never watched an episode because I’m not interested in a show about a girl fighting vampires, that makes me an idiot? Hmmm. I thought it just made me someone with better things to do. If you want to say I’m ignorant because I don’t bother to watch the show, whatever, I can live with Buffy fans thinking I’m ignorant. But an idiot?
I rarely just ‘watch’ TV. Right now, the only show I ‘watch’ is BSG. For the other 5 or so hours I watch a week (not including sports), my attention is split between the TV and other activities. The only thing on Buffy that grabbed me (or better put, could grab me) was Willow, and if I want just to look at pretty women, I’ll mute the Spanish stations.
Every work of art is different, to whatever degree. Every “consumer” of art is, well, even more different. Therefore, the relationship between any one consumer and any one piece of art will be utterly unique. For this reason, the simple expression “you don’t get it” is such a vast oversimplification as to be pretty much entirely useless in a serious discussion about any particular piece of art. More awkwardly, but accurately, it might be expressed, “Your relationship with the art under discussion is different from my relationship with the art under discussion. Let’s explore those differences.” Saying “you don’t get it” is as explicit a way to ask for trouble in such a discussion as anything I can think of.
That said, it’s undeniably true–each artwork being unique–that some are more complex than others; sometimes with the artist’s intention, and sometimes due to contextual factors. No one bristles when you suggest (to borrow Cervaise’s argument) that Joyce’s *Finnegans Wake *requires a great deal of study and attention in order to “get it,” but people get extremely defensive when you suggest the same thing about Eyes Wide Shut. This is a complicated equation, boiling down, in my theory, to a kind of reverse snobbery: many people think of movies–and TV shows, comics, etc.–as “low art,” and therefore not worthy of examining beyond an initial impression; “If the movie doesn’t get its point across in once viewing, then it’s failed” is a common sentiment.
Now, imagine someone saying that about Joyce or Shakespeare. See? We allow for such complexity in “high” art, but many people dismiss it in “low” art. Then if someone comes along and claims to find complexity in what appears to be “low” art, they’re often called a snob, or whatever, for applying “artspeak” to low art. This is the reverse snobbery I mentioned: it’s the refusal to acknowledge the possibility of complexity in “low art” that is the real snobbery here; insisting that movies are not worthy of complex analysis, but Joyce is, is elitism.
Anyway, my point–without the time to rewrite the above to make smoother sense–is that accusations of not “getting it,” in my opinion, are about this division of what some people think is worthwhile examining, and others think should be dismissed out of hand.
It puzzles and annoys me that some folks seem not to understand that liking or not liking something may be merely a matter of individual taste, and may have nothing to do with “getting” or understanding the thing in question.
For example, I can’t stand the taste of mustard. I really, truly hate mustard. But several people have told me, with great confidence, that it’s just a matter of my not having tried the right mustard. No, it isn’t. For me, the only “right” mustard is mustard that is absent from my plate. I understand the concept of mustard quite thoroughly, and have attempted to like various varieties of it. My dislike does not stem from ignorance. I “get” mustard. But that doesn’t make me like it.
For “mustard” in the above paragraph, I might have substituted “Joss Whedon” or “William Wordsworth” or “South Park” or “Tom Wolfe” or any number of other things that people keep trying to tell me I oughta love, and if I don’t love 'em, I’m an idjit.
My dad used to have a chum who was constantly telling horrible, stupid jokes. One time, my father’s pal told one of these stinkers, and when my father failed to laugh, the friend said “Whatsa matter? Don’tcha get it?”
My dad said “Oh, I get it, all right. I just don’t want it.”
:rolleyes: all you want. Apparently putting in emoticons is easier than reading. I said if you are dismissing it because you don’t “get it” that would make you an idiot.
I never said because you had no interest in the show that made you an idiot.
That show wasn’t even on my radar for most of its existence. Did I walk around poo-poo-ing it like a jack ass? Nope. Words about it never exited my mouth.
Basically I’m saying, make an effort before you talk shit.
Oh, I read it alright. I just don’t think you “get” what I wrote. I dismissed the show because I just don’t understand the appeal of a show about a girl who fights vampires, which is pretty much your definition of an idiot. It’s OK. You can go on making disjointed leaps in judgment if you like, as long as it justifies your superficial sense of what it takes to “get” a show.
I don’t know, I think there’s some validity in saying that someone “doesn’t get” a work of art, and it doesn’t have to be a negative or condescending judgment. Especially with works that are extremely unusual or idiosyncratic; something could be so incompatible with your sensibility that you’re unable to form an opinion one way or the other. That’s different from understanding it but just not liking it.
Well, except, your assumption that the show is “about a girl who fights vampires” is incorrect. It’s certainly incomplete, and is kind of like saying Moby Dck is about whales. It’s this kind of uninformed dismissal that’s likely to lead to observations of ignorance.
See, the thing is, ignorance is a neutral concept, so it puzzles me that someone like yourself, you basically acknowledges ignorance of Buffy, would get defensive.
This leads to what I see as the biggest problem that arises in this area: people getting defensive when someone points out the undeniable fact that their experience of the art under discussion is different; that you might, in fact, “get it” if your experience was more similar. In other words, it’s quite possible that if you did put the same time and attention into it, you might see that there’s more to Moby Dick than whales. The defensiveness–the bad blood in such discussions–often begins on the part of the people claim that ignorance of a particular work is as valid a position from which to express an opinion as intimate familiarity. Some people tend to get defensive if relative degrees of familiarity even enters the discussion. It’s this pride-in-ignorance that bewilders me. I think of it the same way the OP does: if you can articulate why you like/dislike a particular work, then I, personally, will tend to give your opinion a little more credit. It’s when people claim that an opinion entirely ignorant of the work is equally valid and then insist that this opinion is equally valid that I scratch my head.
Now, despite your sarcasm, MacNew, I think as long as it’s clear that you’re talking about your assumptions, and not really talking about Buffy at all–being (neutral word here) ignorant of it–we’re cool. But if you come into a discussion of Buffy and try to make a case for your opinion that it’s worthless because it’s “about a girl who fights vampires,” that’s when your ignorance become arrogance, which is not a neutral term.
