Sorry; writing at work; interrupted by customers. I hope my sense is clear through the lazy typos and failure to re-read before posting. I don’t mean to suggest that someone who’s seen a movie 20 times is more “right” than someone who’s only seen it once; only that such differences of experience can be a perfectly valid part of a discussion. Around here, they’re not allowed to be. For some reason, the concept of more- or less-informed opinions is extremely politically incorrect at the dope; you’re likely to be labeled a snob for asking someone to defend their opinion; to “show their work.”
[QUOTE=Autumn Almanac]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I tend to agree; which is why I say that the “bad blood” in such a discussion often begins when someone overreacts to the suggestion that they “don’t get” the work under discussion.
Nonetheless, I think “you don’t get it” is inflammatory language, and there are more productive ways to move such a discussion forward.
[QUOTE=lissener]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Part of the bad blood comes from some who opine on something they’ve never experienced at all - I know we had that battle some time back.
However, if I have watched a couple of episodes of Buffy, or have viewed a movie, and left both with a big “meh”, it is not correct to invalidate my opinion just because I don’t see in it what someone else does. Same with Melville’s Moby Dick. I’ve been told time and again that it is a great piece of American literature. I know that it’s not about the big white whale. Still, after several attempts to ‘get it’, I’ve given up. I had to force my way 2/3rds into the book, and I was not entertained. Reading Moby Dick, to me, was hard work, and that is not why I read (unless, of course, it is required for work, but I digress). I get it - doesn’t mean I still have to like it. For me again, I don’t ‘get’ Buffy, because from the episodes I did watch, there was little or nothing to get, or what was there wasn’t hitting my personal buttons. I have no f’n clue what Whedon was trying to get across, and when I did watch, I didn’t find a reason to try (I did get, and enjoy, Firefly - it’s not an anti-Whedon bias).
I do understand fan’s frustrations when others crap upon their intense likes. I’m not going to open an existing Buffy thread to insult its viewers, although there are many who do just that. On the other hand, if I follow a pit link back to a thread about a movie, and my interpretation is that the fan is insulting everybody who doesn’t understand the film as he/she does, I might take offense and respond (or I might ignore it, depending on how crappy / busy my day is otherwise).
[QUOTE=McNew]
Is this post emoticon-free enough for ya?
[/QUOTE]
If only it could have been word free as well. Sigh. 
So Buffy 's not about a girl who fights vampires?
Heh.
[Runs off dodging brickbats and flaming torches…]
[QUOTE=D_Odds]
Part of the bad blood comes from some who opine on something they’ve never experienced at all - I know we had that battle some time back.
However, if I have watched a couple of episodes of Buffy, or have viewed a movie, and left both with a big “meh”, it is not correct to invalidate my opinion just because I don’t see in it what someone else does. Same with Melville’s Moby Dick. I’ve been told time and again that it is a great piece of American literature. I know that it’s not about the big white whale. Still, after several attempts to ‘get it’, I’ve given up. I had to force my way 2/3rds into the book, and I was not entertained. Reading Moby Dick, to me, was hard work, and that is not why I read (unless, of course, it is required for work, but I digress). I get it - doesn’t mean I still have to like it. For me again, I don’t ‘get’ Buffy, because from the episodes I did watch, there was little or nothing to get, or what was there wasn’t hitting my personal buttons. I have no f’n clue what Whedon was trying to get across, and when I did watch, I didn’t find a reason to try (I did get, and enjoy, Firefly - it’s not an anti-Whedon bias).
I do understand fan’s frustrations when others crap upon their intense likes. I’m not going to open an existing Buffy thread to insult its viewers, although there are many who do just that. On the other hand, if I follow a pit link back to a thread about a movie, and my interpretation is that the fan is insulting everybody who doesn’t understand the film as he/she does, I might take offense and respond (or I might ignore it, depending on how crappy / busy my day is otherwise).
[/QUOTE]
This is all perfectly valid. There was nothing, at first glance, that interested you enough to get you to put forward the effort required to “get” a complex work. You made that choice; so what? I just wish people who make such choices wouldn’t get so bent out of shape when that choice is acknowledged in a discussion.
You can’t “get” French poetry without learning French first; and probably a little bit about poetry. There are other idioms, or metaphors, or whatever, that one would benefit from “learning” in “getting” a complex and layered work like, frinstance, Buffy; the fact that you choose not to do that is no big deal. But you can’t claim to have an equally informed opinion on the subject.
I don’t mind people who have chosen not to “learn” something that I happen to like. But when they try to convince me that I’m delusional–or elitist, or whatever–for liking it, from their position of relative ignorance, that’s when I, personally, tend to get frustrated with the discussion. Is all.
[QUOTE=cactus waltz]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Again with the tired compulsion to make the Simpson/FG comparison. Anyone who says this about Family Guy just really doesn’t get it.
Yeah, that works. :dubious:
See, maybe the bottom line is, in order to like something, you have to get it. If you don’t like it, on some level, you don’t “get” it. That feels true to me. If more people just admitted that, instead of insisting that they totally grok it on every level, they just don’t like it, these arguments wouldn’t be so frustratingly circular. It’s not an admission of stupidity, or ignorance, or some sort of deficiency, to admit you don’t get something. It seems like ego gets wrapped up in these discussions, which are usually actually matters of taste in the end.
Just my $0.02.
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
See, maybe the bottom line is, in order to like something, you have to get it.
[/QUOTE]
So then if this is true, what does it mean to “get it,” as distinct from liking it? Or are they the same thing, in which case, why even use the phrase “get it?”
I so don’t get this thread. 
What if you “get it” but still don’t think it’s that good? For example I get and enjoy Buffy, Firefly, and Deal or No Deal, but I don’t understand the fanatic devotion some people have to those shows.
Marc
[QUOTE=RickJay]
So then if this is true, what does it mean to “get it,” as distinct from liking it? Or are they the same thing, in which case, why even use the phrase “get it?”
[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t it have to resonate on a level deeper than just “liking it” to be considered “getting it”? Random example: I like Studio 60, though I don’t love it and if it got cancelled, I’d be OK. But the people who love it probably connect with some aspect of it on a level that I just don’t. I accept that. To me, it’s fun but it just ain’t that good. Maybe if I were a different person, with difference experiences, I’d get it and love it. Whatever. I’m OK with that.
You probably don’t get it on the level that the fanatics do. So what? Why not just acknowledge that and move on?
[QUOTE=lissener]
<snip>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.
[/QUOTE]
I thought I was pretty clear that I wasn’t claiming it was worthless, I was claiming that my passing knowledge of it was enough to make me not interested in it. In fact, I claimed that I was satisfied if that made me appear ignorant in the eyes of some. I don’t think I ever judged it on its merits, or claimed to.
As for my “defensiveness”, look at Push You Down’s relatively incendiary post, and then mine. I didn’t resort to the vitriol or expletives that he/she did. Sure I was sarcastic, but sarcasm has pretty much moved in and put its feet up on the kitchen table around these parts, no?
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Doesn’t it have to resonate on a level deeper than just “liking it” to be considered “getting it”? Random example: I like Studio 60, though I don’t love it and if it got cancelled, I’d be OK. But the people who love it probably connect with some aspect of it on a level that I just don’t. I accept that. To me, it’s fun but it just ain’t that good. Maybe if I were a different person, with difference experiences, I’d get it and love it. Whatever. I’m OK with that.
You probably don’t get it on the level that the fanatics do. So what? Why not just acknowledge that and move on?
[/QUOTE]
But the concept of “Getting it” or “connecting with it” are still not being defined. What is the difference between a Studio 60 fanatic and someone who isn’t fond of the show, aside from the fact that, as defined, one likes it and the other doesn’t?
[QUOTE=McNew]
I thought I was pretty clear that I wasn’t claiming it was worthless, I was claiming that my passing knowledge of it was enough to make me not interested in it. In fact, I claimed that I was satisfied if that made me appear ignorant in the eyes of some. I don’t think I ever judged it on its merits, or claimed to.
[/QUOTE]
Note my “if.”
[QUOTE=McNew]
As for my “defensiveness”, look at Push You Down’s relatively incendiary post, and then mine. I didn’t resort to the vitriol or expletives that he/she did. Sure I was sarcastic, but sarcasm has pretty much moved in and put its feet up on the kitchen table around these parts, no?
[/QUOTE]
If we’re gonna play a game of “he started it,” I’d have to point out that you started with the rolly eyes. Not to continue the game; only to point out the people get awful sensitive and defensive in this area, for some bizarre reason.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
But the concept of “Getting it” or “connecting with it” are still not being defined. What is the difference between a Studio 60 fanatic and someone who isn’t fond of the show, aside from the fact that, as defined, one likes it and the other doesn’t?
[/QUOTE]
What kind of definition do you want? It’s pretty esoteric, the idea of connecting with a text. The jokes make you laugh, the storylines seem real to you, the characters feel like friends, the plot twists are fresh and exciting. Sometimes Studio 60 has those qualities for me, sometimes it doesn’t. Not often enough for me to say I love it. If a Studio 60 fan said I wasn’t getting it, maybe they’d be right. I think I get it OK, considering I’m an SNL fan since the beginning, and a Sorkin fan, but who knows? I do think my utter lack of interest in the Christian v. atheist culture wars and my low threshhold for will-they-or-won’t-they love stories hurts my ability to dig the show any more than I do. So maybe I don’t get the appeal of those aspects. Doesn’t mean there isn’t any.
The Buffy example is even more relevant. Some people do not find the Whedon style of humor appealing. Some don’t like stories about teenage angst. Others aren’t into the supernatural. If none of those things gels with you, then you can watch every show, understand every pop culture reference, but still not “get” the show and think it sucks. But suck it doesn’t, because it’s working on other levels that some people can’t appreciate.
At the same time, I guess I don’t “get it” enough to be the fanatic who writes fanfic, and hey… I’m OK with that.
[QUOTE=MGibson]
What if you “get it” but still don’t think it’s that good?
[/QUOTE]
Or what if you don’t “get it” but like it?
I’m sure we’ve all enjoyed some books and movies and TV and music without fully understanding everything about it. Then someone points out subtext, hidden meaning, in-jokes, cultural references (or whatever) and you “get it” more than you did before (which may or may not affect how much you like it).
Try this: Watch Repo Man with your Dad. The whole time I’m snickering, and my Dad was glowering at the set and barking “What the Hell kind of movie is this, anyway?” “Dad, it’s a cult classic.” “Cult of what? Idiots?”
[QUOTE=RickJay]
But the concept of “Getting it” or “connecting with it” are still not being defined. What is the difference between a Studio 60 fanatic and someone who isn’t fond of the show, aside from the fact that, as defined, one likes it and the other doesn’t?
[/QUOTE]
To complicate things further, I’d like to distance “getting it” and “being fanatic” also. I don’t agree with Rubystreak’s argument. Not only do I think that there is a difference between ‘getting’ something and liking it and that the two aren’t necessarily combined. I also think being ‘fanatical’ about a show doesn’t necessarily mean that you get it, even if it’s very likely for most given fanbases.
I would like to look at age again. When I was very young all of my story-telling comsumtion was very superficial: I didn’t question social constructions underlying messages and so on 'cause I was not yet trained in thinking that way. Again, it didn’t stop me from liking it a lot or even a whole lot.
Today, I both ‘get’ shows and enjoy them as well as ‘get’ shows and not enjoying them. South Park is a show that usually disturbs me in some way when I see it and that is not entertaining to me. But I get the intentions of the script writers and i can in some ways sympathize with it.
I like to call that ideological liking.
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
You probably don’t get it on the level that the fanatics do. So what? Why not just acknowledge that and move on?
[/QUOTE]
It’s not like I sit around all day fuming that I don’t like the show as much as everyone else. Though for a while it was tough to move away from it because so many of my friends seemed to eat, breathe, and dream Firefly for more than a year. Anyway, we may have different definitions of “getting it”. If I understand the material then, so far as I’m concerned, I get it. What is it about Firefly you don’t think I understand?
Marc
I too would like to say there’s a big difference between ‘getting’ something and liking it. For instance Sandman there’s tons of references/jokes/plot lines that I flat don’t ‘get’ yet I love it on every level I can.
Yet my fiancee is into Red Dwarf now I ‘get’ Red Dwarf I make half the jokes the characters are going to make before they make them. In fact she gets annoyed how fast I am on getting the humor/plot lines when I’m not even paying attention yet I don’t really like that show and don’t find it worth my time.
I think people are using ‘getting’ something as a label for relating to something and that’s not at all how I view it.