PDA

View Full Version : Classics that suck



Pages : [1] 2

Cullion
11th June 09, 04:35 PM
This is the thread to talk about works of art which are generally revered as classics, things that you're almost supposed to like. But don't.

I'll start.

Catcher in the Rye. What an annoying book. I'm sick and tired of hearing about it's supposedly subversive nature from critics who don't seem to have read it from cover to cover, how it's supposed to be an expose of the phoniness of modern society. My arse.

It's a long whine delivered by a spoiled emo-teen, and the glaring thing that I've never seen another critic comment on is that the protagonist is the biggest liar in the book, He lies to the adults and his peers constantly to get what he wants out of them whilst whimpering self-righteously about the phoniness of them all.

That's one fucking emo I would like to 'suicide'.

Fuck Salinger.

Shawarma
11th June 09, 04:39 PM
Three Musketeers. While Count of Monte Christo is an amazing book, all characters in 3M struck me as being gigantic unlikeable fruitcakes and the plot bored me.

Sun Wukong
11th June 09, 04:42 PM
See, I realized the hypocritical nature of the book, but at the same time, I think what he is demonstrating is that his character's position was completely futile. He was out of place, out of time, out of luck, and just generally desperate for a different kind of life.

I think Salinger hit a raw nerve with the book that needed to be hit. As long as we are on classics that suck...

JANE AUSTEN... she sucked.

Hard.

Boring, boring, boring, boring. Good god, I can't make it through one of her books without wanting to gouge out my eyes from fear that I may never feel anything resembling a pulse in my veins again.

CoffeeFan
11th June 09, 04:53 PM
It took me years to eventually finish reading Dracula. I just kept getting bored at all the fucking over dramatic, tedious exposition. Seriously, STFU and stab some hearts!

Dracula, awsome plot but works better as a movie

EuropIan
11th June 09, 05:00 PM
My popculture addled brain hated all the historical detours Tolkien made in the trilogy.

NO I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR STRETCH OF LAND. TELL ME WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE FELLOWSHIP.

But in reality my rage should be pointed at the simarillion.

WarPhalange
11th June 09, 05:02 PM
It took me years to eventually finish reading Dracula. I just kept getting bored at all the fucking over dramatic, tedious exposition. Seriously, STFU and stab some hearts!

Dracula, awsome plot but works better as a movie

I was going to do Dracula as well.

Absolutely no character progression. It reads more like an episode of Batman, where at the end, everything is fine and dandy and everything has gone back to how it was in the beginning.

Cullion
11th June 09, 05:08 PM
See, I realized the hypocritical nature of the book, but at the same time, I think what he is demonstrating is that his character's position was completely futile.

Really? It's been a few years, but the way I remember it that little emo faggot lives a guilded life and just wines about it rather than enjoying the opportunities he's been given.

Mas
11th June 09, 05:15 PM
Pollock paintings.

People say they are genius. I think they are a bit of fluff.

Harpy
11th June 09, 05:18 PM
Anything by Salman Rushdie.

EuropIan
11th June 09, 05:20 PM
Pollock paintings.

People say they are genius. I think they are a bit of fluff.
Would you agree Kadinsky was better, for a lack of a better word, at abstract expressionism (lol).

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
11th June 09, 05:21 PM
Pollock paintings.

People say they are genius. I think they are a bit of fluff.

Have you seen them in person?

To Kill a Mockingbird. I just plain didn't like it.

Cullion
11th June 09, 05:21 PM
I'll never forgive Rushdie for defiling Padma so I'm not capable of an honest opinion of his work.

Shawarma
11th June 09, 05:21 PM
Agreed. The man would never have achieved anything if some cavemullah hadn't taken offense at his tripe.

Also, Deep Throat with Linda Lovelace. That sucked.

EuropIan
11th June 09, 05:23 PM
Also, Deep Throat with Linda Lovelace. That sucked.

You know your documentaries well.

Dark Helmet
11th June 09, 05:25 PM
Have you seen them in person?

To Kill a Mockingbird. I just plain didn't like it.
Not enough N-words?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
11th June 09, 05:29 PM
Musicians:
Tchaikovsky
Elvis
Sex Pistols
Guns N Roses
Vivaldi

Artists:
Andy Warhol
Paul Reubens
Jacques-Louis David

Spade: The Real Snake
11th June 09, 05:30 PM
Dune.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
11th June 09, 05:33 PM
Parts of the various Three Stooges' careers. They had their ups and downs, though to be honest even at their best I can't see why they persist in popularity while the Marx Brothers go relatively unloved.

EuropIan
11th June 09, 05:34 PM
Intellectuals still make marx references, plebians make WU WUWUWUWUWUWu references

Harpy
11th June 09, 05:35 PM
Musicians:
Tchaikovsky
Elvis
Vivaldi


Ignorant child.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
11th June 09, 05:42 PM
Tchaikovsky is a very gimmicky composer with very little substance. Vivaldi was merely decent and very prolific, but he's been inflated to a compositional god and I do not appreciate that. Elvis is just an overloved pop star that should have been forgotten like the Jonas Brothers will eventually (hopefully) be.

I have a particular disinterest for overinflated composers that fall under the classical umbrella because their fame often comes at the expense of more deserving 20th century musicians. Miles Davis and Herbie Hancock >>>>>>> Verdi or Tchaikovsky.

EuropIan
11th June 09, 05:46 PM
tchaikovsky is overrated. But he doesn't suck.

HappyOldGuy
11th June 09, 05:51 PM
It's only a semi decent novel, but King Dork has hatred of Catcher in the Rye as a recurrent theme. The protagonist calls all of his teachers the Catcher Cult.

I hate and despise Victorian novels as a class, but most especially everything ever written by Dickens.

Sun Wukong
11th June 09, 05:51 PM
Anything by Salman Rushdie.

1. Rushdie is POP literature. Not a classic yet.

2. You're a fuckin idiot.

Spade: The Real Snake
11th June 09, 05:56 PM
I hate and despise Victorian novels as a class, but most especially everything ever written by Dickens.
If memory serves, they were paid per word so the narrative is wordy and unwieldy and over descriptive, making it unaccessable.

Harpy
11th June 09, 05:58 PM
1. Rushdie is POP literature. Not a classic yet.

2. You're a fuckin idiot.

Don't let the rage give you an aneurysm :)

Shawarma
11th June 09, 06:00 PM
Dune.
Why? I consider Dune to be one of the two good sci-fi novels ever written, the second being Neuromancer.

Harpy
11th June 09, 06:01 PM
I hate and despise Victorian novels as a class, but most especially everything ever written by Dickens.

Wait, are you telling me you don't enjoy the works of Hardy, Thackeray, the Brontes etc.?

Spade: The Real Snake
11th June 09, 06:03 PM
Why? I consider Dune to be one of the two good sci-fi novels ever written, the second being Neuromancer.
I dunno.
I've tried reading it a half-dozen times (beginning in Jr. High, again in High School, the last in college until my wife demanded I try to read it......) and just find it really boring and none of the characters appealed to me.

WarPhalange
11th June 09, 06:10 PM
Same. Except I reached that conclusion when I was 14. People tell me that if I read it now, I'll love it because I'll be able to understand it better blah blah. I say it's not worth the risk.

Sun Wukong
11th June 09, 06:45 PM
Why? I consider Dune to be one of the two good sci-fi novels ever written, the second being Neuromancer.

Have you ever read The Foundation by Asimov?

HappyOldGuy
11th June 09, 07:00 PM
Wait, are you telling me you don't enjoy the works of Hardy, Thackeray, the Brontes etc.?

Hate and despise assumes lack of enjoyment, yes.

There are exceptions (I heart conan doyle) but few and far between.

Dagon Akujin
11th June 09, 07:27 PM
JANE AUSTEN... she sucked.

Hard.

Boring, boring, boring, boring. Good god, I can't make it through one of her books without wanting to gouge out my eyes from fear that I may never feel anything resembling a pulse in my veins again.

Do you know who said the following quotes?

"Everytime I read Jane Austin, I want to dig up her bones and hit her in the head with her own femur"

"Jane Austen? Why I go so far as to say that any library is a good library that does not contain a volume by Jane Austen. Even if it contains no other book."

"Jane is entirely impossible. It seems a great pity that they allowed her to die a natural death."

"Everytime I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone."


^^^^^^^^^Quotes by Mark Twain


I agree wholeheartedly with S. Langhorn on this one.




Pollock paintings.

People say they are genius. I think they are a bit of fluff.

And yet this is my favorite Norman Rockwell:

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/r/rockwell/rockwell_connoisseur.jpg

RickTheCritic
11th June 09, 07:31 PM
Ill add a movie, The Devil and Daniel Webster

Summary: A poor New England farmer sells his soul to the devil for 7 years of good luck.

Gay, nuff said. The said said farmer is incredibly annoying and worse of all doesn't change internally. He is brash and stupid with and without the money the receives.

The most horrible thing in this movie his the "devil" actualy gives out sound business advice which in the context of the film is "omg" evil.

socratic
11th June 09, 08:12 PM
Intellectuals still make marx references, plebians make WU WUWUWUWUWUWu references
You have no idea how hard it is to find someone out here in the 'real world' who's see the Stooges. In a lot of ways I think they sort of jumped the shark after Curly died, but Shemp and the boys had some good eps every now and then, even if they continuously recycled gags. Still, I luvs that show to bits, though I should really see the Marx brothers stuff.

I didn't enjoy having to read Catcher in the Rye for school but once I started studying it I enjoyed it a lot more. You begin to appreciate Holden when you realise he's a neurotic, mental-breakdown coming-of-age 'modern kid' rather than just a whiney bitch. It's noted in the prologue that he's in a mental hospital, isn't it?

Two books from the 'Victorian' era I enjoyed were Turn of the Screw and Frankenstein. The former went on way too fucking long but was still good and the latter managed to pull off being massively too long by just being fucking awesome.

Austen is just goddamn terrible. I get it, you're repressed women, get the fuck over it. Does he make you call him Mr Darcy when he fucks you in the ass? Ugh. The downfall of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was it far too closely resembled Pride and Prejudice to be effective parody.

Edit: I just cannot get into classical music, at all. I like Danse Macabre and that's pretty much it. It's boring old shit for boring old people unwilling to listen to anything half-modern. And Elvis made a career on selling black music to white rednecks, he gets no lovin' from me. Although apparently he was really nice to Jackie when he wasn't stealing his style, so that's good.

Aphid Jones
11th June 09, 08:53 PM
Anything by Heinlein and over half of Vonnegut.

Building a story around a random one-sentence speculation seems contrived and repetitive, and that's my beef with most of Vonnegut's material.

Heinlein's characters are verbose proxies of his own philosophies, his plots are uninteresting and overdone (even for his time). He should have stuck to crafting essays instead of trying to write Atlas Shrugged in Space.

Truculent Sheep
11th June 09, 08:55 PM
Let's begin...

i. Star Wars
ii. The Simpsons
iii. Lord of the Rings/Tolkien generally.
iv. Indiana Jones.
vi. Dario Argento & Lucio Fulci.
vii. Most American independent comics.
viii. The Romantic movement.
ix. Evangelion.
x. Gundam.
xi. RTD-era Doctor Who.
xii. Shakespeare.
xiii. Spaced.
xiv. Absolutely Fabulous.
xv. Frasier.
xvi. Wallace & Gromit.
xvii. Anathema.
xviii. Sylvia Plath.
xix. Dickens.
xx. The Wire.

socratic
11th June 09, 09:01 PM
You take The Simpsons back! Nuclear family comedrama never felt so good!

Harpy
11th June 09, 09:10 PM
Let's begin...

i. Star Wars
ii. The Simpsons
iii. Lord of the Rings/Tolkien generally.
iv. Indiana Jones.
vi. Dario Argento & Lucio Fulci.
vii. Most American independent comics.
viii. The Romantic movement.
ix. Evangelion.
x. Gundam.
xi. RTD-era Doctor Who.
xii. Shakespeare.
xiii. Spaced.
xiv. Absolutely Fabulous.
xv. Frasier.
xvi. Wallace & Gromit.
xvii. Anathema.
xviii. Sylvia Plath.
xix. Dickens.
xx. The Wire.

TS - you better edit that list before Ketchens has a hissy fit. Some of those are not 'classics'.

WarPhalange
11th June 09, 09:13 PM
The Bible.

The plot has absolutely no cohesion and I had a real hard time rooting for the protagonists, what with them committing genocide and all.

DerAuslander108
11th June 09, 10:53 PM
xx. The Wire.

Fucking die.

Kein Haar
11th June 09, 11:42 PM
I Love Lucy.

WarPhalange
11th June 09, 11:43 PM
Jenna Jameson

WarPhalange
11th June 09, 11:43 PM
Pun not intended.

Kein Haar
11th June 09, 11:45 PM
Delete plz

Mas
12th June 09, 01:15 AM
Have you seen them in person?


This is terrible, but I've only seen one; you may be on to something.

nihilist
12th June 09, 01:38 AM
ULYSSES by James Joyce
THE GREAT GATSBY by F. Scott Fitzgerald
A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce
LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov
BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley
THE SOUND AND THE FURY by William Faulkner
CATCH-22
DARKNESS AT NOON by Arthur Koestler
SONS AND LOVERS by D.H. Lawrence
THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck
UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcolm Lowry
THE WAY OF ALL FLESH by Samuel Butler
1984 by George Orwell
I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves
TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf
AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY by Theodore Dreiser
THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER by Carson McCullers
SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE by Kurt Vonnegut
INVISIBLE MAN by Ralph Ellison
NATIVE SON by Richard Wright
HENDERSON THE RAIN KING by Saul Bellow
APPOINTMENT IN SAMARRA by John O'Hara
U.S.A. (trilogy) by John Dos Passos
WINESBURG, OHIO by Sherwood Anderson
A PASSAGE TO INDIA by E.M. Forster
THE WINGS OF THE DOVE by Henry James
THE AMBASSADORS by Henry James
TENDER IS THE NIGHT by F. Scott Fitzgerald
THE STUDS LONIGAN TRILOGY by James T. Farrell
THE GOOD SOLDIER by Ford Madox Ford
ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell
THE GOLDEN BOWL by Henry James
SISTER CARRIE by Theodore Dreiser
A HANDFUL OF DUST by Evelyn Waugh
AS I LAY DYING by William Faulkner
ALL THE KING'S MEN by Robert Penn Warren
THE BRIDGE OF SAN LUIS REY by Thornton Wilder
HOWARDS END by E.M. Forster
GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN by James Baldwin
THE HEART OF THE MATTER by Graham Greene
LORD OF THE FLIES by William Golding
DELIVERANCE by James Dickey
A DANCE TO THE MUSIC OF TIME (series) by Anthony Powell
POINT COUNTER POINT by Aldous Huxley
THE SUN ALSO RISES by Ernest Hemingway
THE SECRET AGENT by Joseph Conrad
NOSTROMO by Joseph Conrad
THE RAINBOW by D.H. Lawrence
WOMEN IN LOVE by D.H. Lawrence
TROPIC OF CANCER by Henry Miller
THE NAKED AND THE DEAD by Norman Mailer
PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT by Philip Roth
PALE FIRE by Vladimir Nabokov
LIGHT IN AUGUST by William Faulkner
ON THE ROAD by Jack Kerouac
THE MALTESE FALCON by Dashiell Hammett
PARADE'S END by Ford Madox Ford
THE AGE OF INNOCENCE by Edith Wharton
ZULEIKA DOBSON by Max Beerbohm
THE MOVIEGOER by Walker Percy
DEATH COMES FOR THE ARCHBISHOP by Willa Cather
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY by James Jones
THE WAPSHOT CHRONICLES by John Cheever
THE CATCHER IN THE RYE by J.D. Salinger
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess
OF HUMAN BONDAGE by W. Somerset Maugham
HEART OF DARKNESS by Joseph Conrad
MAIN STREET by Sinclair Lewis
THE HOUSE OF MIRTH by Edith Wharton
THE ALEXANDRIA QUARTET by Lawrence Durell
A HIGH WIND IN JAMAICA by Richard Hughes
A HOUSE FOR MR BISWAS by V.S. Naipaul
THE DAY OF THE LOCUST by Nathanael West
A FAREWELL TO ARMS by Ernest Hemingway
SCOOP by Evelyn Waugh
THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE by Muriel Spark
FINNEGANS WAKE by James Joyce
KIM by Rudyard Kipling
A ROOM WITH A VIEW by E.M. Forster
BRIDESHEAD REVISITED by Evelyn Waugh
THE ADVENTURES OF AUGIE MARCH by Saul Bellow
ANGLE OF REPOSE by Wallace Stegner
A BEND IN THE RIVER by V.S. Naipaul
THE DEATH OF THE HEART by Elizabeth Bowen
LORD JIM by Joseph Conrad
RAGTIME by E.L. Doctorow
THE OLD WIVES' TALE by Arnold Bennett
THE CALL OF THE WILD by Jack London
LOVING by Henry Green
MIDNIGHT'S CHILDREN by Salman Rushdie
TOBACCO ROAD by Erskine Caldwell
IRONWEED by William Kennedy
THE MAGUS by John Fowles
WIDE SARGASSO SEA by Jean Rhys
UNDER THE NET by Iris Murdoch
SOPHIE'S CHOICE by William Styron
THE SHELTERING SKY by Paul Bowles
THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE by James M. Cain
THE GINGER MAN by J.P. Donleavy
THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS by Booth Tarkington

bob
12th June 09, 04:26 AM
HOWARDS END by E.M. Forster


Such a let down.

But on reflection perhaps I shouldn't have expected gay erotica.

Sun Wukong
12th June 09, 04:38 AM
The Bible.

The plot has absolutely no cohesion and I had a real hard time rooting for the protagonists, what with them committing genocide and all.

Oh, that was pretty awesome.

Truculent Sheep
12th June 09, 06:52 AM
Fucking die.

The sinister Baltimore mafia rears its ugly head.

Spade: The Real Snake
12th June 09, 08:00 AM
Lily's Copypasta.

Scrapper
12th June 09, 08:00 AM
Hawthorne, Melville, and Dickens. Just because you know a lot of words, doesn't mean you have to use them ALL. There are over 800.000 words in the English language, and these hacks had to use each one twice a chapter. BREVITY is the soul of wit. you can be poetic and descriptive without being heavy handed. Tolkien flirted with this problem, but his material was compelling enough to keep me interested.

Atlas Shrugged- I've started it three times and never gotten past the 5th page. What overwrought self-masturbatory drivel. If you want to make a point with a fictional character, make him interesting.

Bob Dylan- Probably the greatest lyricist who ever lived and a decent picker, but he was an affront to the vocal gods and his harmonica work was pathetic. He would just get a harp in the same key as the song and blow into it randomly. All his stuff is much better when performed by someone else.

The Beatles- Were they good? Sure. Did they redefine rock and roll? Sure. Does their music entertain me? Not even a little bit. Give me Stones or give me death.

The Colt M1911 pistol- This thing is like a religion to some people. I'm not a big fan. For one third the price I can have a .357 revolver with the same weight, bulk, and ammo capacity.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
12th June 09, 08:06 AM
Bob Dylan's bad singing used to be a front. Don't ask me. It's actually geniunely terrible these days though. His harmonica playing improved a lot over his career but instrumental virtuosity was never the point.

socratic
12th June 09, 08:20 AM
Wow, I think Reese just shit on the entire line of Penguin Classics.

I really enjoyed Heart of Darkness but apparently I'm the only one I know who did. The horror. The horror.

Phrost
12th June 09, 09:15 AM
I don't get Citizen Kane.

nihilist
12th June 09, 11:26 AM
1 CITIZEN KANE (1941)
2 GODFATHER, THE (1972)
3 CASABLANCA (1942)
4 RAGING BULL (1980)
5 SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (1952)
6 GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)
7 LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
8 SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993)
9 VERTIGO (1958)
10 WIZARD OF OZ, THE (1939)
11 CITY LIGHTS (1931)
12 SEARCHERS, THE (1956)
13 STAR WARS (1977)
14 PSYCHO (1960)
15 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)
16 SUNSET BLVD. (1950)
17 GRADUATE, THE (1967)
18 GENERAL, THE (1927)
19 ON THE WATERFRONT (1954)
20 IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)
21 CHINATOWN (1974)
22 SOME LIKE IT HOT (1959)
23 GRAPES OF WRATH, THE (1940)
24 E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (1982)
25 TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962)
26 MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939)
27 HIGH NOON (1952)
28 ALL ABOUT EVE (1950)
29 DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944)
30 APOCALYPSE NOW (1979)
31 MALTESE FALCON, THE (1941)
32 GODFATHER PART II, THE (1974)
33 ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)
34 SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937)
35 ANNIE HALL (1977)
36 BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, THE (1957)
37 BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, THE (1946)
38 TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, THE (1948)
39 DR. STRANGELOVE (1964)
40 SOUND OF MUSIC, THE (1965)
41 KING KONG (1933)
42 BONNIE AND CLYDE (1967)
43 MIDNIGHT COWBOY (1969)
44 PHILADELPHIA STORY, THE (1940)
45 SHANE (1953)
46 IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (1934)
47 STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, A (1951)
48 REAR WINDOW (1954)
49 INTOLERANCE (1916)
50 LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, THE (2001)
51 WEST SIDE STORY (1961)
52 TAXI DRIVER (1976)
53 DEER HUNTER, THE (1978)
54 M*A*S*H (1970)
55 NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959)
56 JAWS (1975)
57 ROCKY (1976)
58 GOLD RUSH, THE (1925)
59 NASHVILLE (1975)
60 DUCK SOUP (1933)
61 SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS (1941)
62 AMERICAN GRAFFITI (1973)
63 CABARET (1972)
64 NETWORK (1976)
65 AFRICAN QUEEN, THE (1951)
66 RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981)
67 WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? (1966)
68 UNFORGIVEN (1992)
69 TOOTSIE (1982)
70 CLOCKWORK ORANGE, A (1971)
71 SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998)
72 SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, THE (1994)
73 BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID (1969)
74 SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, THE (1991)
75 IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT (1967)
76 FORREST GUMP (1994)
77 ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976)
78 MODERN TIMES (1936)
79 WILD BUNCH, THE (1969)
80 APARTMENT, THE (1960)
81 SPARTACUS (1960)
82 SUNRISE (1927)
83 TITANIC (1997)
84 EASY RIDER (1969)
85 NIGHT AT THE OPERA, A (1935)
86 PLATOON (1986)
87 12 ANGRY MEN (1957)
88 BRINGING UP BABY (1938)
89 SIXTH SENSE, THE (1999)
90 SWING TIME (1936)
91 SOPHIE'S CHOICE (1982)
92 GOODFELLAS (1990)
93 FRENCH CONNECTION, THE (1971)
94 PULP FICTION (1994)
95 LAST PICTURE SHOW, THE (1971)
96 DO THE RIGHT THING (1989)
97 BLADE RUNNER (1982)
98 YANKEE DOODLE DANDY (1942)
99 TOY STORY (1995)
100 BEN-HUR (1959)

OZZ
12th June 09, 11:39 AM
1 CITIZEN KANE (1941)
2 GODFATHER, THE (1972)
3 CASABLANCA (1942)
4 RAGING BULL (1980)
5 SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (1952)
6 GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)
7 LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
8 SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993)
9 VERTIGO (1958)
10 WIZARD OF OZ, THE (1939)
11 CITY LIGHTS (1931)
12 SEARCHERS, THE (1956)
13 STAR WARS (1977)
14 PSYCHO (1960)
15 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)
16 SUNSET BLVD. (1950)
17 GRADUATE, THE (1967)
18 GENERAL, THE (1927)
19 ON THE WATERFRONT (1954)
20 IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)
21 CHINATOWN (1974)
22 SOME LIKE IT HOT (1959)
23 GRAPES OF WRATH, THE (1940)
24 E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (1982)
25 TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962)
26 MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939)
27 HIGH NOON (1952)
28 ALL ABOUT EVE (1950)
29 DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944)
30 APOCALYPSE NOW (1979)
31 MALTESE FALCON, THE (1941)
32 GODFATHER PART II, THE (1974)
33 ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)
34 SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937)
35 ANNIE HALL (1977)
36 BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, THE (1957)
37 BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, THE (1946)
38 TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, THE (1948)
39 DR. STRANGELOVE (1964)
40 SOUND OF MUSIC, THE (1965)
41 KING KONG (1933)
42 BONNIE AND CLYDE (1967)
43 MIDNIGHT COWBOY (1969)
44 PHILADELPHIA STORY, THE (1940)
45 SHANE (1953)
46 IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (1934)
47 STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, A (1951)
48 REAR WINDOW (1954)
49 INTOLERANCE (1916)
50 LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, THE (2001)
51 WEST SIDE STORY (1961)
52 TAXI DRIVER (1976)
53 DEER HUNTER, THE (1978)
54 M*A*S*H (1970)
55 NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959)
56 JAWS (1975)
57 ROCKY (1976)
58 GOLD RUSH, THE (1925)
59 NASHVILLE (1975)
60 DUCK SOUP (1933)
61 SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS (1941)
62 AMERICAN GRAFFITI (1973)
63 CABARET (1972)
64 NETWORK (1976)
65 AFRICAN QUEEN, THE (1951)
66 RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981)
67 WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? (1966)
68 UNFORGIVEN (1992)
69 TOOTSIE (1982)
70 CLOCKWORK ORANGE, A (1971)
71 SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998)
72 SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, THE (1994)
73 BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID (1969)
74 SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, THE (1991)
75 IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT (1967)
76 FORREST GUMP (1994)
77 ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976)
78 MODERN TIMES (1936)
79 WILD BUNCH, THE (1969)
80 APARTMENT, THE (1960)
81 SPARTACUS (1960)
82 SUNRISE (1927)
83 TITANIC (1997)
84 EASY RIDER (1969)
85 NIGHT AT THE OPERA, A (1935)
86 PLATOON (1986)
87 12 ANGRY MEN (1957)
88 BRINGING UP BABY (1938)
89 SIXTH SENSE, THE (1999)
90 SWING TIME (1936)
91 SOPHIE'S CHOICE (1982)
92 GOODFELLAS (1990)
93 FRENCH CONNECTION, THE (1971)
94 PULP FICTION (1994)
95 LAST PICTURE SHOW, THE (1971)
96 DO THE RIGHT THING (1989)
97 BLADE RUNNER (1982)
98 YANKEE DOODLE DANDY (1942)
99 TOY STORY (1995)
100 BEN-HUR (1959)
WTF? Are you saying all these movies suck?
If so, you're seriously lacking in judgment..

In case no one else has mentioned it..MOBY DICK is fucking overrated big time.Although I do like some of Melville's other writings.

Mas
12th June 09, 11:41 AM
Pretty sure that is the AFI top 100.

OZZ
12th June 09, 11:42 AM
Pretty sure that is the AFI top 100.

But I thought this thread was about the one's that sucked? Why list them all if they don't all suck?

OZZ
12th June 09, 11:44 AM
Oh yes..Finnigan's Wake sucks too..big time, overrated dribble.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
12th June 09, 11:45 AM
But I thought this thread was about the one's that sucked? Why list them all if they don't all suck?

How'd you grasp classic literature but not that joke?

Ajamil
12th June 09, 12:16 PM
In case no one else has mentioned it..MOBY DICK is fucking overrated big time.Although I do like some of Melville's other writings.

Yaay!! I fucking hated this book. It was a great story, but the story covers maybe five chapters, the rest is fucking "let's learn about whales!" filler. If I wanted to know how whaling was in the 19th century, I'd read a history book. Damn you, Melville, damn you and your nerdy name.

HappyOldGuy
12th June 09, 12:25 PM
But I thought this thread was about the one's that sucked? Why list them all if they don't all suck?

I'm guessing that Reese has found a new love of his life and is only coming in here when he needs to take a shit.

nihilist
12th June 09, 12:35 PM
I'm guessing that Reese has found a new love of his life and is only coming in here when he needs to take a shit.

This thread is shit. it is a bunch of shit opinions propagated by sound-bite era snobs who couldn't appreciate a deep breath.

At least Phrost was honest enough to admit that he didn't understand Kane.

Good day sir.

Shawarma
12th June 09, 12:44 PM
Guilty as charged, yeronner.

Truculent Sheep
12th June 09, 12:51 PM
I love this thread. Did I mention that Doonesbury is a load of rubbery old bollocks too? Robbie Burns: Total Cock. Jane Eyre? Wuthering Heights pisses on it from a great height.

jnp
12th June 09, 12:52 PM
Sociocide is a bunch of shit opinions propagated by sound-bite era snobs who couldn't appreciate a deep breath.
We're all in this together.



At least Phrost was honest enough to admit that he didn't understand Kane.

Good day sir.
I've read over three-quarters of the books on your first list, and I can tell you that I unequivocally hate Jane Austen.

I tried to keep it to myself, but I couldn't do it any longer. Jane Austen month on Sociocide? Gag me with a nuclear warhead.

OZZ
12th June 09, 12:53 PM
How'd you grasp classic literature but not that joke?

I overlook the obvious quite a bit, actually..

HappyOldGuy
12th June 09, 12:54 PM
I tried to keep it to myself, but I couldn't do it any longer. Jane Austen month on Sociocide? Gag me with a nuclear warhead.

Reese is not Lily.

He's just hoping that will change after he cocoons in her flayed skin.

nihilist
12th June 09, 01:02 PM
Lily is the main reason I avoid this place now.

At least you have something to thank her for.

jnp
12th June 09, 01:02 PM
Reese is not Lily.

He's just hoping that will change after he cocoons in her flayed skin.
Really? Are you serious? I thought it was a Jekyll and Hyde thing.


I put that micro rant in here because I didn't want Lily to see it, and also because I was commiserating with Reese.

Cullion
12th June 09, 01:10 PM
I think Wallace and Grommit suck rotting smegma too.

Shawarma
12th June 09, 01:18 PM
I think Wallace and Grommit suck rotting smegma too.
Your opinion on the greatness of anything whatsoever is completely invalid from now on. W&G are awesome.

nihilist
12th June 09, 01:21 PM
I think Wallace and Grommit suck rotting smegma too.

Wallace and Grommit represent everything that disgusts me.

Sorry Shawarma.

Shawarma
12th June 09, 01:26 PM
I'm sorry too, I did not realise you were molested by comic looking yet excellently animated clay figures as a child.

Truculent Sheep
12th June 09, 01:29 PM
Your opinion on the greatness of anything whatsoever is completely invalid from now on. W&G are awesome.

Their latest venture, 'A Matter Of Loaf & Death' was anything but. I've had more enjoyable times while projectile vomiting through my nose.

Shawarma
12th June 09, 01:36 PM
Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Truculent Sheep
12th June 09, 01:38 PM
Rex The Runt was much better. And Morph.

DerAuslander108
12th June 09, 01:47 PM
To troll.

Cullion
12th June 09, 01:48 PM
I'm amazed that Tony Hart let Morph on his show. The drug references were so obvious.

Truculent Sheep
12th June 09, 01:56 PM
To troll.

Rich coming from a prickly kobold.

CoffeeFan
13th June 09, 01:19 AM
Akira. Fricking blob at the end, whole movie blows chunks. 'Neo Tokyo' LOL.

Agreed, Akira isn't that great. Ninja Scroll is a lot better
8uWIQ2yAPnQ

Zendetta
13th June 09, 01:35 PM
Charles Dickens does indeed suck sweaty orphan balls.

Ajamil
13th June 09, 01:57 PM
Agreed, Akira isn't that great. Ninja Scroll is a lot better
8uWIQ2yAPnQ

Who began the anime ninja fight style of having the two opponents strafe side by side? It never made sense to me, are they racing?

syberia
13th June 09, 02:17 PM
Akira. Fricking blob at the end, whole movie blows chunks. 'Neo Tokyo' LOL.


The anime?

Have you read the manga? The movie was way to unevenly spaced out, i felt it didn't do it justice. Not that the manga was perfect, but still.

Great expectaions. It was just awful. And dont think that getting halfway thorugh and watching the movie helps, it doesn't, thats awful to.



Who began the anime ninja fight style of having the two opponents strafe side by side? It never made sense to me, are they racing?


Tradition, i think, it just gives artists opportunites to show off character design.

DAYoung
13th June 09, 07:13 PM
Jane Austen should be read by people who can read, not by half-educated television-raised pseudo-adult comic fans expecting speech bubbles and tits with superpowers.

Ever never grasped the virtues of DH Lawrence. His work just seems laboured, anaemic and whiny.

Cullion
13th June 09, 07:17 PM
That's because he loved the cock but didn't get enough of it. His whole life was one long boring Sunday teatime of sexual frustration.

DAYoung
13th June 09, 07:23 PM
That's because he loved the cock but didn't get enough of it. His whole life was one long boring Sunday teatime of sexual frustration.

Yes, but: Henry James.

Cullion
13th June 09, 07:38 PM
"I believe the nearest I've come to perfect love was with a young coal-miner when I was about 16."

I didn't say he got no cock, just not enough. Getting it once or twice in your whole life and then spending the rest of your time trying really hard to convince everybody that you're a totally red-blooded pussy-lusting he-man of the wild whilst secretly fantasizing about whisps of manly chest hair, muscular thighs and a whiff of cheap cologne is probably more tortuous than never getting any. Because you know what you're missing.

DAYoung
13th June 09, 07:45 PM
I didn't say he got no cock, just not enough. Getting it once or twice in your whole life and then spending the rest of your time trying really hard to convince everybody that you're a totally red-blooded pussy-lusting he-man of the wild whilst secretly fantasizing about whisps of manly chest hair, muscular thighs and a whiff of cheap cologne is probably more tortuous than never getting any. Because you know what you're missing.

Possibly.

I'd say it was the tension that got to him, not the lack of sex. Henry James didn't have the same conflict between his masculinity and his sexuality - they were more 'of a piece'.

Lawrence seemed unable to escape an orthodox idea of masculinity, while simultaneously possessing urges that contradicted it.

In addition: James was sexual, but not in a 'HERE IT IS EVERYBODY LOOK I'M WRITING ABOUT IT' sort of way. He esteemed and wrote about a more restrained, repressed psyche.

Lawrence wanted to be all up-front and objective about sex, while being unable to properly integrate sexuality and gender identity.

(Warning: this is all speculation, and I'm not much of a Lawrence scholar. Grain of salt, and so on.)

Cullion
13th June 09, 07:54 PM
Have you ever seen Ken Russell's film adaptation of 'Women in Love'?

It has the man in my avatar in it. It's worth seeing. You might like Lawrence more on screen.

DAYoung
13th June 09, 07:58 PM
Have you ever seen Ken Russell's film adaptation of 'Women in Love'?

It has the man in my avatar in it. It's worth seeing. You might like Lawrence more on screen.

No. But I'll check it out.

I like Lawrence's Kangaroo. He wrote is very quickly, and I think this improved it.

Cullion
13th June 09, 08:03 PM
5wgWEhCrnoI

I don't mean to be rude, but I think this scene could have been enhanced if the lech in the white hat was acted with an Australian accent.

DAYoung
13th June 09, 08:09 PM
I think he should've sounded like Soulja Boy.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
13th June 09, 10:39 PM
Lawrence wanted to be all up-front and objective about sex, while being unable to properly integrate sexuality and gender identity.

Is it really necessary to integrate them? Liking the cock and being masculine seem about as related as enjoying hamburgers and being in excellent shape, no matter how much people want to believe these to be mutually exclusive.

DAYoung
13th June 09, 10:40 PM
Is it really necessary to integrate them? Liking the cock and being masculine seem about as related as enjoying hamburgers and being in excellent shape, no matter how much people want to believe these to be mutually exclusive.

Oh, I agree. But I suspect part of the identity is the myth of total integration, i.e. masculinity goes with virile heterosexuality.

bob
13th June 09, 10:49 PM
A lot of classics I find take a while to put your head in the right place to appreciate the language and cultural background from when they were written. Once you've acclimatised you can really appreciate them.

A lot of classics seem to be 'classic' not because they were the best example of a particular kind of theme or story, but because they were the first, or at least the first great book of that kind.

That said I'll put in a vote for Brave New World as pretty mediocre.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
13th June 09, 10:50 PM
Here's one I've thought about in the past: does crossdressing or transgenderism necessarily conflict with gender identity? Ccould someone still rightly consider themselves entirely masculine or feminine even though they like playing pretend?

DAYoung
13th June 09, 10:52 PM
A lot of classics seem to be 'classic' not because they were the best example of a particular kind of theme or story, but because they were the first, or at least the first great book of that kind.

Care to give some examples, with reference to the genre or age, and what came before and after?

bob
13th June 09, 11:06 PM
Care to give some examples, with reference to the genre or age, and what came before and after?

The example that springs to mind is the 'picaresque'. Every age re-invents this and it's rarely a great story as such but it's often a story that moves and captivates people, because when it's done well it's authentic.

eg. On the Road was not a great book (and Kerouac's other work tends to prove this IMO) but it was a classic because it perfectly captured that age (I assume).

DAYoung
14th June 09, 12:17 AM
The example that springs to mind is the 'picaresque'. Every age re-invents this and it's rarely a great story as such but it's often a story that moves and captivates people, because when it's done well it's authentic.

eg. On the Road was not a great book (and Kerouac's other work tends to prove this IMO) but it was a classic because it perfectly captured that age (I assume).

I was hoping for a more specific example, e.g. X comes first, then Y follows, then Z comes after. X gestures at GENRE 1, Y exemplifies it (but is less profound), then Z departs toward GENRE 2, while still being considered a late example of GENRE 1.

You could probably do this with Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.

Toby Christensen
14th June 09, 12:18 AM
"The Power Of One"- ooooh, lookit! The Afwicans are peepow!
"Tandia"- Same again.
"Tommo and Hawk", inaccurate, obscene and borderline racist. Also insults me as a twin.

In fact Bryce Courtenay sucks. Go back to SA sir or start writing better.

"Generally every documentary on disabled people ever made in the 90's or earlier"

The Australian textbooks and such that don't show our military, politicial and scientific impact, good and bad.

The fact that (allegedly) there are etiquette manuals for non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal people on how toto interact. THOUSANDS of them. They are not released to students.

"The Outsiders" - I'm sorry, it's a great story, but it's no classic.
"To Kill A Mocking Bird"- look I respect Harper Lee (I think that's the name). It would be great as a social commentary. But it's misused for "OOOH NOOOOO WHiTES AND BLACKS CAN'T GET ALONG HNHGHFJURF".

syberia
14th June 09, 02:36 AM
Jane Austen should be read by people who can read,

Hey, I read them. A few times. Patiently and carefully (I had to write essays after all). I didn't enjoy them, just like I don''t enjoy pancakes.


not by half-educated television-raised pseudo-adult comic fans expecting speech bubbles and tits with superpowers.

You make this sound like a bad thing...



"To Kill A Mocking Bird"- look I respect Harper Lee


I actually really enjoyed this book, it read quite easily, i think. I don't know if its a classic.
<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
14th June 09, 02:36 AM
"To Kill A Mocking Bird"- look I respect Harper Lee (I think that's the name). It would be great as a social commentary. But it's misused for "OOOH NOOOOO WHiTES AND BLACKS CAN'T GET ALONG HNHGHFJURF".

plz elaborate

DAYoung
14th June 09, 02:40 AM
Hey, I read them. A few times. Patiently and carefully (I had to write essays after all).

I suspect reading for university kills more book-buzz than anything else.

Toby Christensen
14th June 09, 02:49 AM
It's the inherent message pushed by Neofeminazis in History class. Blacks and whites CAN get along. Boo Radley needed more attention because of the way mentally ill and disabled people have been portrayed and still are- he was very vulnerable but he killed Ewell to protect the children. He was actually a benevolent badass in pyjamas.

I don't doubt the Deep South has its problems still, but the issues of To Kill A Mockingbird is an historical commentary, not a running one.

nihilist
14th June 09, 02:50 AM
BS.

syberia
14th June 09, 02:51 AM
I suspect reading for university kills more book-buzz than anything else

High school Literature, actually, perhaps I was to immature? True, but I'm glad it didn't kill Lord of the Flies, I'm Not Scared or To Kill a Mockingbird, all of which i really enjoyed.

Or the movie, Gattaca.

Toby Christensen
14th June 09, 02:53 AM
So to recap-

Blacks and whites CAN'T get along, Boo Radley WASN'T vulnerable but resourceful and there's a town that's STILL IN THE 1920's in every single respect?

Wow.

Holy SHIT!

THE MULTIVERSE IS RENT APART LIKE A FUCKING BAG OF MINCE!

There is no hope! No hop-

nihilist
14th June 09, 02:55 AM
I never did the assigned reading in high school. I refused.
well, except for the shakespeare.

DAYoung
14th June 09, 02:58 AM
I never did the assigned reading in high school. I refused.
well, except for the shakespeare.

Probably a good thing.

I mean, look how you turned out.

Oh. Wait.

Cullion
14th June 09, 06:44 AM
Is it really necessary to integrate them? Liking the cock and being masculine seem about as related as enjoying hamburgers and being in excellent shape, no matter how much people want to believe these to be mutually exclusive.

That's a good point, but the specific issue with Lawrence was that he wasn't actually that masculine, he just desperately wanted to be. What I think DAYoung picks up in his writing is that desperate, false protestation 'no, I am a man! really I am!'.

So it wasn't that he couldn't integrate love of the cock with genuine masculinity, it's that he wanted to be masculine, wasn't, and felt compelled to try too hard to overcompensate for not being able to stop thinking about dicks and butts all the time.

DAYoung
14th June 09, 06:55 AM
That's a good point, but the specific issue with Lawrence was that he wasn't actually that masculine, he just desperately wanted to be. What I think DAYoung picks up in his writing is that desperate, false protestation 'no, I am a man! really I am!'.

So it wasn't that he couldn't integrate love of the cock with genuine masculinity, it's that he wanted to be masculine, wasn't, and felt compelled to try too hard to overcompensate for not being able to stop thinking about dicks and butts all the time.

This is what I was getting at here (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1433648&postcount=100).

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
14th June 09, 07:04 AM
That's a good point, but the specific issue with Lawrence was that he wasn't actually that masculine, he just desperately wanted to be. What I think DAYoung picks up in his writing is that desperate, false protestation 'no, I am a man! really I am!'.

So it wasn't that he couldn't integrate love of the cock with genuine masculinity, it's that he wanted to be masculine, wasn't, and felt compelled to try too hard to overcompensate for not being able to stop thinking about dicks and butts all the time.

What do you think stopped him from being manly, exactly?

DAYoung
14th June 09, 07:07 AM
What do you think stopped him from being manly, exactly?

Consumption (in reality) and homosexuality (in his mind).

Cullion
14th June 09, 07:19 AM
As Damon says, he spent most of his life in ill-health that precluded taking part in much in the way of traditionally masculine or 'rugged' sports or outdoorsmanship.

These defficiencies were probably exaggerated for him in his mind somewhat by being raised in what would've been the very gruff and macho environment of a nottinghamshire coal-mining village.

For a cultural comparison, try to imagine a redneck community in the US, then give it a colder climate and make the people poorer.

Now add a sensitive young author with a gay streak who has lung problems that stop him taking part in sports.

Truculent Sheep
14th June 09, 07:29 AM
He was also conflicted, as many clever working class youths in the UK are, by a conflicting urge to stay lumpenprole or actually do something with one's life. Mellors the comedy coital gamekeeper from Lady Chatterley's Lover was the end result.

bob
14th June 09, 07:30 AM
There was a famous British climber, doctor and poet in the early 20th century who eventually killed himself because he couldn't handle his love for cock. His story always touched me. His name was John Menlove Edwards, I shit you not.

God hates fags so much that sometimes he insists on branding them.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
14th June 09, 07:42 AM
He was also conflicted, as many clever working class youths in the UK are, by a conflicting urge to stay lumpenprole or actually do something with one's life. Mellors the comedy coital gamekeeper from Lady Chatterley's Lover was the end result.

is there a lot of pressure for young working class to continue to piss their time away in the coal mines?

Shawarma
14th June 09, 07:44 AM
Makes sense that he'd spend his life scaling massive, rock-hard peaks, erecting themselves mightily, penetrating the sky.

Cullion
14th June 09, 07:45 AM
is there a lot of pressure for young working class to continue to piss their time away in the coal mines?

Dig out and dust down the story about young black kids who fail to achieve what they could for fear of being seen to 'act white'.

I've seen something simillar happen to white working class kids too, in my own lifetime.

Reverse snobbery, essentially, and in Lawrence's youth the divisions between English social classes were much larger than today and mobility between them more restricted.

Every community has peer pressure to conform of some sort.

Truculent Sheep
14th June 09, 09:16 AM
is there a lot of pressure for young working class to continue to piss their time away in the coal mines?

The mines are closed, but the mentality remains the same. Doing well in school is either seen as being poofy, or in more ideological households, betraying your roots.

socratic
18th June 09, 07:51 AM
I suspect reading for university kills more book-buzz than anything else.
I tend to find for some odd reason that petty romance-plots that are severely dated to the lame, verbose, emotionally cold and highly restrictive era they came from are just damn boring. I think it's less that Austen wasn't clever so much as that Victorianism is just boring and promoted a style of writing that tended to be boring. Turn of the Screw very nearly turned completely lame by having about 4 times as many words as it actually needed to have. Frankenstein does the same thing but somehow manages to pull it off- maybe because it's actually deeply innovative and had themes beyond 'being a rich, priviliged white woman in a slave-trading military superpower sure does suck'. And just in case you're worried, I started reading comics after I read a few Penguin Classics. Now that I think about it, I've read most of the few classics I have read because of school, and I enjoyed most of them, although I've always been a real English buff so I guess I secretly get off on books or something.

Huh. Classic comics that suck... Probably everything with Superman in it.

MaverickZ
18th June 09, 09:25 AM
Apple IIe

Ajamil
18th June 09, 09:31 AM
The Death of Superman. I used to like it until I heard a rant that opened my eyes to the fact that Doomsday was less than a nothing character, and that after the whole episode, there was absolutely NO character development in a basically invulnerable character dying.

nihilist
18th June 09, 10:16 AM
1/4 pounder w cheese.

MaverickZ
18th June 09, 10:21 AM
Royale with cheese.

nihilist
18th June 09, 10:24 AM
Arnold From Green Acres

nihilist
18th June 09, 10:24 AM
Both of those fucking Gabor bitches.

MaverickZ
18th June 09, 10:26 AM
"gabor bitches" is now off my list of "Things I never thought I would do a google image search for."

Ajamil
18th June 09, 10:35 AM
Zsa Zsa had a sister?

syberia
18th June 09, 10:35 AM
"gabor bitches" is now off my list of "Things I never thought I would do a google image search for."

I'm curious as to why you would generate a list for that...

Shawarma
18th June 09, 11:22 AM
It's very, very short. Maverick has a search history that would make your brain implode.

Spade: The Real Snake
18th June 09, 11:50 AM
Which one of them used to fuck Merv Griffith?

MaverickZ
18th June 09, 12:16 PM
I'm curious as to why you would generate a list for that...
When you mix OCD and fetishes, weird things happen.

Zendetta
18th June 09, 03:25 PM
There was a famous British climber, doctor and poet in the early 20th century who eventually killed himself because he couldn't handle his love for cock. His story always touched me. His name was John Menlove Edwards, I shit you not.

God hates fags so much that sometimes he insists on branding them.

There was a kid at my middle school - a rather fey Roller Skating Champion - named Jonathon Gay.

Yeah, he got teased a bit.

nihilist
18th June 09, 06:25 PM
I heard Merv was gay.

Toby Christensen
18th June 09, 11:42 PM
It's at this point people should mind their own damn business. Until someone says that I am not allowed to shaft ladies under any circumstances, why should we vilify gays and lesbians (the non-militant ones)?

I'm not meaning to be harsh.

nihilist
19th June 09, 12:57 AM
Don't be ashamed Toby. there's absolutely nothing wrong with you being who you really are.

Toby Christensen
19th June 09, 01:27 AM
Celibate?

nihilist
19th June 09, 01:29 AM
I prefer the term "sex-challenged"

nihilist
19th June 09, 01:30 AM
See what I did there?

Toby Christensen
19th June 09, 02:09 AM
Fuck off euphemism boy

nihilist
19th June 09, 02:09 AM
Are you trying to make a merv on me?

Toby Christensen
19th June 09, 02:28 AM
Not a chance.

nihilist
19th June 09, 02:30 AM
Your loss.

Toby Christensen
19th June 09, 02:36 AM
Yes, because bumming a man would alleviate ALL my worries. Every single one.
Capping a pointless behaviour on a bottle of despair.

Great.

nihilist
19th June 09, 02:38 AM
bumming a man would alleviate ALL my worries. Every single one.


I'm really tempted to sig that.

Toby Christensen
19th June 09, 02:51 AM
Yeah, because quoting out of context is REALLY academically honest and accurate. Gee, It's NEVER started an argument or distorted anything or made ANYTHING worse.

nihilist
19th June 09, 03:22 AM
This is Sociocide.

Arhetton
19th June 09, 05:12 AM
re: tolkein

tom bombadil.

annoying.

re: george lucas

C3P0
annakin skywalker
jar jar binks

Shawarma
19th June 09, 09:12 AM
Fuck you, C3PO is an awesome metallic fruitcake. Fucking bigot.

Ajamil
19th June 09, 02:38 PM
Bernoulli's Principle is a classic with some pretty good suckage.

MaverickZ
19th June 09, 03:41 PM
Bernoulli's Principle is a classic with some pretty good suckage.
The actual book is always better than the Cliff's notes.

Toby Christensen
19th June 09, 04:35 PM
This is Sociocide.

I know.

A LOT of internet forums on ALL topics follow our "rules" they just don't know it.

DAYoung
20th June 09, 04:41 PM
I tend to find for some odd reason that petty romance-plots that are severely dated to the lame, verbose, emotionally cold and highly restrictive era they came from are just damn boring. I think it's less that Austen wasn't clever so much as that Victorianism is just boring and promoted a style of writing that tended to be boring. Turn of the Screw very nearly turned completely lame by having about 4 times as many words as it actually needed to have. Frankenstein does the same thing but somehow manages to pull it off- maybe because it's actually deeply innovative and had themes beyond 'being a rich, priviliged white woman in a slave-trading military superpower sure does suck'. And just in case you're worried, I started reading comics after I read a few Penguin Classics. Now that I think about it, I've read most of the few classics I have read because of school, and I enjoyed most of them, although I've always been a real English buff so I guess I secretly get off on books or something.

Huh. Classic comics that suck... Probably everything with Superman in it.

Austen wasn't a Victorian (if that's what you're saying). She was Georgian/Regency.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

They weren't 'emotionally cold and highly restrictive'. They had manners, rituals and taboos like every culture, but Regency England was quite open and permissive - particularly next to the Victorian age (and even that wasn't as straightlaced as we think).

And Austen wasn't verbose at all. She was, most of the time, perfectly concise. Perhaps her characters speak more formally than Supergirl and Batboy, but nothing you shouldn't be able to grasp.


Mr. Bennet was so odd a mixture of quick parts, sarcastic humour, reserve, and caprice, that the experience of three-and- twenty years had been insufficient to make his wife understand his character. HER mind was less difficult to develop. She was a woman of mean understanding, little information, and uncertain temper. When she was discontented, she fancied herself nervous. The business of her life was to get her daughters married; its solace was visiting and news.

Cullion
20th June 09, 04:55 PM
When most people think of 'Victorian' Britain, they're thinking of late Victorian Britain, after Albert died. Fashions became (quite consciously) funereal and the mourning at the heart of the state spread out across our society, along with the smog and corrupted diets of the newly industrialised poor.

DAYoung
20th June 09, 05:22 PM
When most people think of 'Victorian' Britain, they're thinking of late Victorian Britain, after Albert died. Fashions became (quite consciously) funereal and the mourning at the heart of the state spread out across our society, along with the smog and corrupted diets of the newly industrialised poor.

Yes. It's as if the eighteenth and early nineteenth century just disappeared.

No Austen, Dr. Johnson or Boswell. Only Dickens and James.

(And, let's face it, many of these Austen-haters don't appreciate Dickens or James either.)

It's partly not knowing how to read (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25645499-5001986,00.html).

Kiko
20th June 09, 07:30 PM
It's like any art, though, isn't it? Taste is rather subjective. Doesn't matter if it's music, painting, sculpture, literature or film. Critics and academics can label classics, but not everyone has to like or enjoy them.

Cullion
20th June 09, 07:43 PM
That's why I thought this thread would be a good way of getting artistic debate going. Attack something widely accepted as a classic, and you've got better odds of having somebody wanting to defend it.

Kiko
20th June 09, 07:52 PM
I like to enjoy a good book, not work or wade through it. I could make a list of some of my favorites, but.. eh.. we did a thread on sci-fi once.

DAYoung
20th June 09, 08:01 PM
Taste is subjective. But quality isn't.

You can admit to preferring certain artworks (or styles, genres), while acknowledging the merits of works that don't thrill you.

I'm not entranced by Hemingway, but I can see the simple, primal power of Old Man and the Sea.

Cullion
21st June 09, 04:41 AM
Taste is subjective. But quality isn't.

I'm not so sure. I agree that there are works of art which whilst aren't my cup of tea, I can see the skill and dedication required to produce them.

On the other hand, there are works of art where I really feel that this is disputable, making quality subjective.

Some examples of this would be found in the 'britart' movement of the 90s.

DAYoung
21st June 09, 05:05 AM
I'm not so sure. I agree that there are works of art which whilst aren't my cup of tea, I can see the skill and dedication required to produce them.

On the other hand, there are works of art where I really feel that this is disputable, making quality subjective.

Some examples of this would be found in the 'britart' movement of the 90s.

I was being a bit rough and ready with my phrasing.

But I'd put it this way: artworks can have more or less aesthetic value. Whether we appreciate this value is another thing entirely. But the value (or valuable qualities) is there, in the work.

The process of learning to appreciate this value is aesthetic education (http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/aestheticeducation/da.pdf).

MaverickZ
21st June 09, 11:34 AM
How would you quantify aesthetic value?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
21st June 09, 05:47 PM
Music theory. Painting theory. There's certain things that good art just does, even if these rules are sometimes bent or broken by other good art. Jackson Pollock would be a good example, since if you just look at a digital image it's like some guy just hurled paint at a canvas. But Pollock's paintings weren't about landscapes or heroic scenes, they were just about the depth and texture of the paint. Or with Van Gough or Monet, they "failed" at painting accurate pictures but succeeded in playing with texture and color.

Cullion
21st June 09, 05:59 PM
This is where we get into tougher ground. Now, I actually like Pollock, Van Gough, and to a lesser degree, Monet, but something doesn't instinctively seem right about claiming there's an objective standard for acclaiming the quality of a work.

I think there's a subjective grey area.

I agree that there are works I'm not particularly into, but I can see the skill and dedication that went into them, I also see works that I happen to like, but I know it isn't an exemplar of high craftsmanship (H.P. Lovecraft really isn't a great writer, but I still enjoy his horror stories).

Now, as is the case with much modern art, there are many examples where the people who like a piece think they are perceiving great quality and claim that the people who don't just don't 'get it', but at this point they're arguing a subjective opinion, surely?

Before I carry on, I must admit to not having read Damon's paper that he kindly linked yet. I will.

MaverickZ
21st June 09, 07:17 PM
The point I was trying to lead to is that there are qualities that may be quantified about "good" art, but what those qualities are is subjective as well. I don't think there is one set of qualities you can judge different works of art against. I think the only real way to judge a work of art is to know the goal of the artist and judge of the work achieved the goal set forth. There is such a thing as good pop music.

billy sol hurok
21st June 09, 08:22 PM
How would you quantify aesthetic value?

1. "Expert" consensus.

2. Market consensus, expressed as a dollar amount.

Neither necessarily predicts how I'll feel about a work.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
21st June 09, 10:53 PM
The point I was trying to lead to is that there are qualities that may be quantified about "good" art, but what those qualities are is subjective as well.

Uh, no? You can't argue whether or not a piece of music is in key or time or whether a painting or drawing was properly shaded or the colors blended properly. I think you're confusing different methodology for subjectivity, which isn't the same. When jazz players are "out" of time in terms of pre-modern theory it doesn't sound good subjectively, it's just that they developed a different style of playing in time - hence why it's jazz in the first place.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
21st June 09, 10:58 PM
What I'm trying to say is that when someone gets it right there's always a theoretical explanation for it. What separates Jackson Pollock or Kemialliset Ystavat from your kid drawing on the walls or Sun O))) is that one makes coherent works and the other just threw random crap on a canvas and called it art.

MaverickZ
21st June 09, 11:08 PM
What I'm trying to say is that when someone gets it right there's always a theoretical explanation for it. What separates Jackson Pollock or Kemialliset Ystavat from your kid drawing on the walls or Sun O))) is that one makes coherent works and the other just threw random crap on a canvas and called it art.
DId you read the second part of the post you replied to? This is exactly what it says there. What was the intention of the artist? And did the artist achieve the goal?

Also, it's not really necessary to need to drop names, it doesn't help the argument.

MaverickZ
21st June 09, 11:09 PM
1. "Expert" consensus.

2. Market consensus, expressed as a dollar amount.

Neither necessarily predicts how I'll feel about a work.
Market consensus is a fickle thing, see housing crisis.

As far as "expert consensus", to be an expert is to be judge able to perform up to some high standard. As I'm arguing that the standard is subjective, the idea of an "expert" doesn't make sense. Also why I don't believe literary or art critics have any use.

Ajamil
21st June 09, 11:27 PM
Also why I don't believe literary or art critics have any use.

The use I see of a critic is it's their job to look for things within a field and say if they like it. By experimenting, you can find a critic with similar tastes to yours, and then let them find you good input of whatever type they review.

Toby Christensen
21st June 09, 11:45 PM
I quantify artistic value by walking past stuff in an art exhibition or at the museum and saying:

"When civilisation suffers a hiccup I'll loot that and that and THAT."

V the superhero does it best. His insistence on preserving culture by nicking it and putting it in his huge archive/house is what I am aiming at.

A Supreme Court Justice said this of obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it!"
The same is true of practical and artistic merit.

MaverickZ
22nd June 09, 10:30 AM
[/I]V the superhero does it best. His insistence on preserving culture by nicking it and putting it in his huge archive/house is what I am aiming at.
Speaking of which. The comic book could have done without all the pointless side plots. The movie could have done without the ridiculous love story bend.

jnp
22nd June 09, 01:36 PM
Taste is subjective. But quality isn't.

You can admit to preferring certain artworks (or styles, genres), while acknowledging the merits of works that don't thrill you.

I'm not entranced by Hemingway, but I can see the simple, primal power of Old Man and the Sea.
Quality in art is wholly subjective in my opinion. One man's Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisschrist) is another man's Fallen Caryatid (http://collectionsonline.lacma.org/mwebcgi/mweb.exe?request=record%3Bid=36542%3Btype=101).

Cullion
22nd June 09, 01:47 PM
What I'm trying to say is that when someone gets it right there's always a theoretical explanation for it. What separates Jackson Pollock or Kemialliset Ystavat from your kid drawing on the walls or Sun O))) is that one makes coherent works and the other just threw random crap on a canvas and called it art.

That's a kind of backfilling sophistry rather than objective analysis, no?

billy sol hurok
22nd June 09, 02:22 PM
Market consensus is a fickle thing, see housing crisis.

As far as "expert consensus", to be an expert is to be judge able to perform up to some high standard. As I'm arguing that the standard is subjective, the idea of an "expert" doesn't make sense.

I agree with you on both points.

My examples were meant to show the futility of trying to quantify some objective, inherent artistic value.


Also why I don't believe literary or art critics have any use.

They make swell punching bags.

But seriously, a critic can put a piece into historical context, draw parallels with other works, frame the artist's intentions, and bring a lot of other info and insight to the table -- stuff that wouldn't fit on the little card at the museum. Sure, a lot of wankery often accompanies the data, but a consumer can easily reject the critic's conclusion, and pick and choose among his insights.

At least, I sometimes find it useful to do so.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
22nd June 09, 08:51 PM
DId you read the second part of the post you replied to? This is exactly what it says there.

Did you read my post are are you just stupid? You said it was subjective. I said it was objective. That's a pretty serious point of contention.


What was the intention of the artist? And did the artist achieve the goal?

Oh man suddenly it's 1917 and the only thing that matters is intent. Who gives a dick about quality?


Also, it's not really necessary to need to drop names, it doesn't help the argument.

Don't be a faggot.


That's a kind of backfilling sophistry rather than objective analysis, no?

No, why would they be? Are you trying to say that I can't use a metronome or a model to objectively measure a musician's ability to keep time or a painter or sculptor's sense of anatomy? These are just as important as intent.

billy sol hurok
22nd June 09, 09:16 PM
Are you trying to say that I can't use a metronome or a model to objectively measure a musician's ability to keep time or a painter or sculptor's sense of anatomy? These are just as important as intent.
Coming from a guy with Mr. Zimmerman as his current avatar, this made me lol.


http://djchiclet.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/bob-dylan-i-cant-sing.jpg

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
22nd June 09, 09:20 PM
Bob Dylan is good in spite of his singing. He could have been a whole lot better with some voice lessons.

MaverickZ
22nd June 09, 09:57 PM
Did you read my post are are you just stupid?
You're right, I'm wrong. You win.

billy sol hurok
23rd June 09, 07:04 AM
Bob Dylan is good in spite of his singing.

Which is why your metronome argument fails.

Dylan is regarded as an important artist despite his technical faults. Those faults are readily measurable and quantifiable, but they don't exactly matter.

So your metronome might tell you with mathemagical precision that Coleman Hawkins has an oddly delayed attack, but so what?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
23rd June 09, 10:48 PM
What's your point? I never said good art had to excel at everything and I never denied that Dylan's music would have been a whole lot better if he knew how to sing.

HappyOldGuy
24th June 09, 12:24 AM
I took the HappyOldLady out to dinner at one of the top restaurants in the world (Chez Panisse) for her birthday, and I got to thinking about what makes for "greatness."

The first is that there is a basic level of execution that has to be there. Everything we ate was prepared perfectly, plated in an interesting manner, and the service was top notch. But, it probably wasn't objectively better than what I could have gotten at any top notch restaurant in the neighborhood. That's why

Second. You have to believe that you are seeing/hearing/eating something special. Because it makes you pay attention. Somewhere else, in another setting, I would have enjoyed the food, but I would not have given it the same attention. I wouldn't have noticed the layers of flavor and all the other little details. It's something that museum curators are well aware of. A Picasso behind the magazine rack at your dentist is just not the same as one behind a red rope at the Louvre.

Third. In the words of the immortal bowie Fa Fa Fa Fa Fashion. The professionals and their critics are in a constant dialog about what matters, and what it takes to be important, one that non professionals are often only somewhat aware of. And at the end of the day it's the the people who lead that dialog who get the attention (see point 2) to what they are doing to be considered great.

Which dinner was.

socratic
24th June 09, 05:06 AM
Austen wasn't a Victorian (if that's what you're saying). She was Georgian/Regency.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

They weren't 'emotionally cold and highly restrictive'. They had manners, rituals and taboos like every culture, but Regency England was quite open and permissive - particularly next to the Victorian age (and even that wasn't as straightlaced as we think).

If people couldn't say "I love you" openly, or physically express affection, as the stories seem to hinge around, it seems to me that the society was quite restrictive. Sure, they liked drinking, slavery, and shooting things, and I'm sure the whorehouses got a lot of patronage, but the stories all seem to revolve around a social world of quiet, demure, repressed women and subtlety over clarity.


And Austen wasn't verbose at all. She was, most of the time, perfectly concise. Perhaps her characters speak more formally than Supergirl and Batboy, but nothing you shouldn't be able to grasp.

I don't think there's ever been a Batboy now that I think about it... She says 'three and twenty' rather than 'twenty three' so that should be a red flag on the verbosity meter. The style of speech I think was just more verbose in general back then, not always unbearably so, but they hadn't really gotten the 'you can still write well without writing 500 pages' principle. I'd say Plato is more concise than that, if it wasn't for the fact that whenever Socrates makes a point he asks questions, then leads to a conclusion, then repeats the questions, then repeats the conclusion. "So, you say that xyz?" "Yes." "And you say abc?" "yes." "and if you xyz than you must 123?" "Yes" "But you can't 123 if you abc?" "yes... Damn you Socrates! *shakes fist*"

I can read fine. I read Kant when I was 15, which I think is nothing short of miraculous considering how circumlocutory that brilliant motherfucker was. I just don't find the Austen stories that interesting and I find the society they reflect depressing rather than interesting. Shit, Austen found them depressing.

I'd say that objective analysis of anything beyond cold hard facts would be impossible; I don't pronounce art bad because it's technically shit, I pronounce it bad because it doesn't strike me.

socratic
24th June 09, 05:23 AM
I took the HappyOldLady out to dinner at one of the top restaurants in the world (Chez Panisse) for her birthday, and I got to thinking about what makes for "greatness."

The first is that there is a basic level of execution that has to be there. Everything we ate was prepared perfectly, plated in an interesting manner, and the service was top notch. But, it probably wasn't objectively better than what I could have gotten at any top notch restaurant in the neighborhood. That's why

Second. You have to believe that you are seeing/hearing/eating something special. Because it makes you pay attention. Somewhere else, in another setting, I would have enjoyed the food, but I would not have given it the same attention. I wouldn't have noticed the layers of flavor and all the other little details. It's something that museum curators are well aware of. A Picasso behind the magazine rack at your dentist is just not the same as one behind a red rope at the Louvre.

Third. In the words of the immortal bowie Fa Fa Fa Fa Fashion. The professionals and their critics are in a constant dialog about what matters, and what it takes to be important, one that non professionals are often only somewhat aware of. And at the end of the day it's the the people who lead that dialog who get the attention (see point 2) to what they are doing to be considered great.

Which dinner was.
I think when discussing food you need to remember an important point, and maybe it's because I'm one of those poor bastards who eats what he does not only for enjoyment but for survival, but I would consider any professionally-made dish to be a failure if it isn't at least mildly satiating. I don't care if you've made orgasm-of-the-tastebuds-good food, if you give me a teaspoonful of it then you aren't doing your job and your business is undeserving of good reputation.

billy sol hurok
24th June 09, 07:38 AM
What's your point? I never said good art had to excel at everything and I never denied that Dylan's music would have been a whole lot better if he knew how to sing.
I thought you were falling into the objectivist camp (along with DAYoung -- strange bedfellows indeed!) by claiming you could quantify artistic value in some absolute sense by using objective measurements (metronome, reference to artist's model).

Those measurements are even more clearly irrelevant at the higher levels of artistry, where people "excel" by knowing which rules to break, and how. Which is why I dragged the Hawk into it. Though I did (temporarily) spare all of you the "OMG TAHT LAYDEE HAZ TWO EYEZ ON TEH SAEM SIDE OF HER NOZE!!" argument:


http://www.nzine.co.nz/images/articles/picasso_lg.jpg


Besides, I'm not sure how much "better" Dylan would have been if he had perfect pitch. You could argue that his vocal style, jarring as it was, got people's attention and meshed well with his troubadour mystique. A well-modulated jingle-singer's voice would have belied his whole "ridin' the rails liek Woody Guthrie" shtick.* That flat, twangy affectation went a long way to disguising the fact that he was a middle class Jewish kid from Duluth.

HOG's right: art needs some sort of "velvet rope" to draw attention to itself AS a work of art. But barbed wire can serve the same purpose, and Dylan's voice is, I think, a good example.

----------------
*Speaking of which, anyone see "I'm Not There"? The wife and I politely sat through an hour or so, each refraining from making rude comments in case the other was enjoying it. One of us finally made an exasperated sound, and we shut it down soon thereafter. Todd Haynes is an interesting filmmaker, but sometimes you gotta cut your losses, say you tried, and salvage the evening.

bob
24th June 09, 07:48 AM
I mentioned the Picasso museum in Barcelona in another thread recently. Here is why I think it's the best art exhibition I've ever seen.

It's chronologically organised with works of his from about the age of 6 (just scribblings in the margin of his hymn book) through all his later periods. You see him move through every different conventional style and master them before creating styles of his own.

It made someone like me who is basically pretty ignorant about art realise just how talented he really was. And maybe, just maybe, I thought that the critics have a point sometimes - that if you can't put things in context, if you don't understand it, you really can't make an informed judgement.

Bob Dylan's voice really does suck though. Protip - if you want a surefire way to predict a hit song, play it to a four year old. They have an almost unerring sense of catchy melody.

socratic
24th June 09, 08:35 PM
Bob Dylan's voice really does suck though. Protip - if you want a surefire way to predict a hit song, play it to a four year old. They have an almost unerring sense of catchy melody.
Even if the artistry is only apparent to a child? I'm yet to hear of an adult get really into the Wiggles beyond what is required to ensure they don't spoil their child's mood.

Edit: As for Bob Dylan... I don't think Pavarotti could have somehow made 'It's All Over Now Baby Blue' magically more awesome than it already is. The quality of his voice has something to it, even if he doesn't have technical skill.

Toby Christensen
24th June 09, 11:44 PM
Neil Young's "Castle's Burning" is able to be appreciated as observing things as coming on, even before I was born and I'm the prophet of bad times.

billy sol hurok
27th June 09, 12:44 PM
I mentioned the Picasso museum in Barcelona in another thread recently. Here is why I think it's the best art exhibition I've ever seen.

It's chronologically organised with works of his from about the age of 6 (just scribblings in the margin of his hymn book) through all his later periods. You see him move through every different conventional style and master them before creating styles of his own.

Been/done/bought teh T:

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r223/J_A_M_photos/picassoT.jpg

I thought the exhibition was outstanding as well. That sumbitch sure could draw -- which you wouldn't necessarily know if you'd only seen his Greatest Hits.

<cavil>Gotta say the collection seemed a bit thin overall, especially considering how prolific the guy was. But would probably drop by again if I were in the neighborhood.</cavil>

Cullion
27th June 09, 02:36 PM
If people couldn't say "I love you" openly, or physically express affection, as the stories seem to hinge around, it seems to me that the society was quite restrictive. Sure, they liked drinking, slavery, and shooting things, and I'm sure the whorehouses got a lot of patronage, but the stories all seem to revolve around a social world of quiet, demure, repressed women and subtlety over clarity.

You've got to understand that the world Austen is writing about is a social microcosm. The lives of the high nobility and the bulk of the working class were very different. Even within the upper-middle class world she's describing, she's using literary device to some degree.

As DAYoung says, Imperial Britain was really quite a different place to the way it's commonly imagined.

Essentially, they were adventurous, hard-drinking and ribald people who tinkered with inventions, hated being told what to do and really liked a good fucking fight, until a confluence of smokey industrialisation, realising the true burden of all that global power and being ruled by a mourning queen made them sombre and stern.

When most people see a period piece set in England with people dressed in the clothing from any time in the early 18th through to pre-WWI 20th century, they tend to mentally pigeonhole what they're seeing into something that really only approximates late Victorian Britain.

I think the reason for this is twofold. Partly, that era was the height of our political and economic power (but we were no longer on the ascendency and our culture was starting to turn in upon itself), and partly because some of us have great-grand parents (or for the older of us, great grand parents) who we may dimly remember who were the children of the end of that era.



I don't think there's ever been a Batboy now that I think about it... She says 'three and twenty' rather than 'twenty three' so that should be a red flag on the verbosity meter. The style of speech I think was just more verbose in general back then, not always unbearably so, but they hadn't really gotten the 'you can still write well without writing 500 pages' principle.

This is partly true. I don't think they spoke and wrote like this because they didn't know it was possible to be more concise. I think it was because the didn't see words purely as tools, but they loved them for their own sake and sometimes played with them so enthusiastically it actually obscured what they were trying to communicate.

AAAhmed46
27th June 09, 06:54 PM
Tupac.

Sorry, but i just don't like his music.

AAAhmed46
27th June 09, 06:58 PM
The anime?

Have you read the manga? The movie was way to unevenly spaced out, i felt it didn't do it justice. Not that the manga was perfect, but still.

Great expectaions. It was just awful. And dont think that getting halfway thorugh and watching the movie helps, it doesn't, thats awful to.



Tradition, i think, it just gives artists opportunites to show off character design.


GIVE ME A LINK TO THE MANGA MOTThhAAAA FUCKAAAAA

AAAhmed46
27th June 09, 07:10 PM
Jane Austen should be read by people who can read, not by half-educated television-raised pseudo-adult comic fans expecting speech bubbles and tits with superpowers.

Ever never grasped the virtues of DH Lawrence. His work just seems laboured, anaemic and whiny.

I hate jane austen because i hate stupid romances.

DAYoung
28th June 09, 12:29 AM
How would you quantify aesthetic value?

I think we can speak of 'higher' or 'lower' in aesthetic matters, without giving a number. It's more a matter of felt intensity, complexity, subtlety, lucidity, and so on.

DAYoung
28th June 09, 12:33 AM
The point I was trying to lead to is that there are qualities that may be quantified about "good" art, but what those qualities are is subjective as well. I don't think there is one set of qualities you can judge different works of art against. I think the only real way to judge a work of art is to know the goal of the artist and judge of the work achieved the goal set forth. There is such a thing as good pop music.

I agree with the first half of this, but not the second.

Yes, it's felt or perceived subjectively. And its significance is often subjective. But this doesn't mean you aren't perceiving definite qualities, which offer more or less to the appreciative eye/ear/tongue.

But I don't think the goal of the artist is the benchmark. For example, some poets in Australia set out to make a crappy hoax poem. They succeeding in fooling the editors of a magazine, but failed at their basic aim: their poem was actually quite good.

In other words, it was a good poem despite their goals.

(Now, you might still argue that this reveals the importance of goals, just not in the original sense you meant. I think they're relevant, but not as relevant as you're asserting.)

DAYoung
28th June 09, 12:40 AM
Quality in art is wholly subjective in my opinion. One man's Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisschrist) is another man's Fallen Caryatid (http://collectionsonline.lacma.org/mwebcgi/mweb.exe?request=record%3Bid=36542%3Btype=101).

Appreciation is enjoyed subjectively. I don't think assessments of quality are as subjective as you're suggesting.

Put another way: when you enjoy a work, you're enjoying the experience afforded by the qualities of the object. It's these qualities you're talking about when you talk about the artwork. And these qualities can be more or less suggestive, inspiring, profound, and so on.

Now, your idea of what's valuable in art might require different qualities - but you're still making an argument that X qualities are what makes for good art. And, if you want art to be worth something, you have to exclude some works that fail to provide these (or at least rank them lower).

For example, I think Pissaro's works afford less experientially than, say, Matisse. But I still see Pisarro as producing artworks. By contrast, you might argue that Jeff Koons is a poor artist (or a fine craftsman) - his works offer very little by way of aesthetic experiences. (And these, I'd argue, are what art is primarily for.)

DAYoung
28th June 09, 12:44 AM
I don't pronounce art bad because it's technically shit, I pronounce it bad because it doesn't strike me.

Yes, but what doesn't strike you? Some qualities of the work that you can or can't point to.

It's not scientifically objective. But this doesn't mean we're not talking about objective qualities, meant in the ordinary sense of tangible, external, definable, and so on.

Toby Christensen
28th June 09, 12:53 AM
If it's not giving you impulses to loot it, it's not art.

I have stood with Phar Lap's stuffed corpse. It is a work of art.

I have had the honour of seeing Eddie Mabo's hat. I coveted it and then sensibly called it "something that belongs to all of humanity".

I get pissed off when people steal "The Scream". Because it doesn't BELONG to them.

AAAhmed46
28th June 09, 01:40 AM
I tend to find for some odd reason that petty romance-plots that are severely dated to the lame, verbose, emotionally cold and highly restrictive era they came from are just damn boring. I think it's less that Austen wasn't clever so much as that Victorianism is just boring and promoted a style of writing that tended to be boring. Turn of the Screw very nearly turned completely lame by having about 4 times as many words as it actually needed to have. Frankenstein does the same thing but somehow manages to pull it off- maybe because it's actually deeply innovative and had themes beyond 'being a rich, priviliged white woman in a slave-trading military superpower sure does suck'. And just in case you're worried, I started reading comics after I read a few Penguin Classics. Now that I think about it, I've read most of the few classics I have read because of school, and I enjoyed most of them, although I've always been a real English buff so I guess I secretly get off on books or something.

Huh. Classic comics that suck... Probably everything with Superman in it.

DAyoung actually had me figured out. Thing is, i really didn't have patience for it, for exactly why you stated.

I haven't read the original frankenstien, but i have always wanted to. I know mary shelly always had deeper themes, just reading her biography. She was nineteen when she wrote it huh? Pretty damn impressive, considering her age and the fact she wasn't nearly as boring as her peers.

DAYoung
28th June 09, 01:42 AM
DAyoung actually had me figured out

GOD HELP ME.

Artful Dentures
28th June 09, 03:40 AM
James Joyce

I am sorry I have tried and tried, but his stuff is pretentious crap disguised as art. If it wasn't for talentless English professors shoving it down students throats no one would read him.

DAYoung
28th June 09, 03:46 AM
James Joyce

I am sorry I have tried and tried, but his stuff is pretentious crap disguised as art. If it wasn't for talentless English professors shoving it down students throats no one would read him.

I enjoyed Ulysses. Good fun.

So you must be wrong.

Shawarma
28th June 09, 06:05 AM
Never read Joyce, but according to a chap I know, you really need a pretty solid background in literature to be able to enjoy him as he enjoys making subtle references to a bunch of other books, writers and thinkers. Or something, it's been a while.

bob
28th June 09, 06:08 AM
Well you'd certainly never catch me admitting to not liking Joyce.

Shawarma
28th June 09, 06:10 AM
Not in the presence of DaYoung, no. He'd peer at you down his spectacles and huff on his professor pipe in no uncertain way.

DAYoung
28th June 09, 06:11 AM
Never read Joyce, but according to a chap I know, you really need a pretty solid background in literature to be able to enjoy him as he enjoys making subtle references to a bunch of other books, writers and thinkers. Or something, it's been a while.

I disagree. You get more if you've read widely, but much of Ulysses is perfectly good fun for your average, intelligent reader, with a basic familiarity with Western literature.

(Having said this, one of my majors was literature. It's possible I took in more than I know.)

DAYoung
28th June 09, 06:14 AM
Not in the presence of DaYoung, no. He'd peer at you down his spectacles and huff on his professor pipe in no uncertain way.

Huff, huff, huff...

(But where are my damn glasses?)

http://www.pyke-eye.com/a/phil/1988/AJAyer.jpg

bob
28th June 09, 06:16 AM
Fortunately we have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy around here.

DAYoung
28th June 09, 06:20 AM
i hate stupid romances.

Obviously it's the 'romances' bit you can't identify with.

DAYoung
28th June 09, 06:22 AM
Fortunately we have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy around here.

Joyce is good. Very good.

But, to be honest, it all reads like a game: playing with literature, rather than offering a vision of life.

Of course it has a vision, and sometimes a moving or hilarious or profound one. But this is chiefly - to my mind, of course - overshadowed by the game.

bob
28th June 09, 06:27 AM
Don't get me wrong, the guy's obviously a genius but he would have been better suited to writing cryptic crosswords.

Actually that's probably a little harsh. Dubliners was quite moving in a simple, elegant way. He just seemed to go a little Bubbles the chimp oxygen chamber-ish in later incarnations (if you'll forgive my own brilliant yet subtle allusion)

Cullion
28th June 09, 06:38 AM
I disagree. You get more if you've read widely, but much of Ulysses is perfectly good fun for your average, intelligent reader, with a basic familiarity with Western literature.

(Having said this, one of my majors was literature. It's possible I took in more than I know.)

Yes you probably did. Ulysses is widely considered mystifying and unintelligible by people of modestly above average intellect and no literature degree.

DAYoung
28th June 09, 06:39 AM
Don't get me wrong, the guy's obviously a genius but he would have been better suited to writing cryptic crosswords.

Actually that's probably a little harsh. Dubliners was quite moving in a simple, elegant way. He just seemed to go a little Bubbles the chimp oxygen chamber-ish in later incarnations (if you'll forgive my own brilliant yet subtle allusion)

He refined, expanded, elaborated his art. It's not unprecedented in artists, whether in painting , music or fiction.

And sometimes artworks can be explosive and genre-changing, without actually being that good to engage with.

When TS Eliot remarked that Joyce had destroyed the nineteenth-century novel, he wasn't being ironic - his work was rightly hailed as a landmark in fiction, for its plotting, style/s and vision of everyday life.

In the history of the novel, it's vital.

But as a novel, that is, as an artwork, I think it's of less value than (choosing rapidly from the shelf) Portrait of a Lady, Crime and Punishment, Persuasion, Atomised, The Last Temptation, Nausea, and so on.

In other words, it's less worthwhile than the greats of 19th and 20th century fiction.

DAYoung
28th June 09, 06:42 AM
Yes you probably did. Ulysses is widely considered mystifying and unintelligible by people of modestly above average intellect and no literature degree.

Perhaps it's more mystifying if you're searching for The Answer.

As a flow of suggestive imagery, witty dialogue and clever observations, it's pretty accessible.

bob
28th June 09, 06:44 AM
TS Eliot



lol, Cats.

bob
28th June 09, 06:44 AM
I'm sorry I don't know what came over me there.

billy sol hurok
28th June 09, 07:42 AM
I think we can speak of 'higher' or 'lower' in aesthetic matters, without giving a number. It's more a matter of felt intensity, complexity, subtlety, lucidity, and so on.

Felt by whom? and so on.

billy sol hurok
28th June 09, 07:45 AM
But I don't think the goal of the artist is the benchmark. For example, some poets in Australia set out to make a crappy hoax poem. They succeeding in fooling the editors of a magazine, but failed at their basic aim: their poem was actually quite good.

In other words, it was a good poem despite their goals.


And how do you "know" it was good?

(I actually agree that the artist's intent is not controlling -- except to the extent that she must intend to create art.)

billy sol hurok
28th June 09, 08:03 AM
I disagree. You get more if you've read widely, but much of Ulysses is perfectly good fun for your average, intelligent reader, with a basic familiarity with Western literature.

(Having said this, one of my majors was literature. It's possible I took in more than I know.)

I spent a whole semester on "Ulysses."

Allusions to Western Lit occupied less than 20% of the annotations/elucidations/etc. The otherwise-unreachable stuff was comprised of old pop song lyrics, ads, a shit-ton of Irish politics over the centuries, the guy who used to live in that house when Joyce was a kid: layers upon layers.

Which, at one level, is quite tiresome when you think about it. Who gives a shit about the guy who lived in that house? Why should a book's greatness rely upon someone unearthing that information and presenting it in an annotated version? And is that going to be on the final?

At another level, though, it creates a density that had never been seen before: that book is Joyce's world. That book is Joyce himself, if one can be so reductionist as to make him the sum of his memories, references and inside jokes. And you can argue that if you get it, fine. If not, well, hobble along as best you can; he doesn't really care.

Which is kind of radical. But which we now take for granted.

A few nights ago I saw several well-known comedians discussing Andy Kaufmann. I think it was Seinfeld who said that Kaufmann's indifference was breathtaking; a standup comic's worst nightmare is bombing, yet Andy loved it when the audience DIDN'T get it. He lived for making audiences confused, resentful, disoriented. The sound of crickets and uncomfortable shifting of butts in seats was music to his ears.

I think this makes him a lineal descendant of Joyce. There, I said it.

AAAhmed46
28th June 09, 11:36 PM
GOD HELP ME.
Hey, just because i don't like something doesn't mean i don't respect it or think it sucks/

Dickens as you stated was pretty cool, but i had a hard time reading him. Doesn't mean i didn't respect him. Same with Shakespeare(actually i enjoyed much ado about nothing, good stuff, same with othello)

As for Elizabeth and Darcy, i just wanted to kick them in the face.

socratic
28th June 09, 11:55 PM
DAyoung actually had me figured out. Thing is, i really didn't have patience for it, for exactly why you stated.

I haven't read the original frankenstien, but i have always wanted to. I know mary shelly always had deeper themes, just reading her biography. She was nineteen when she wrote it huh? Pretty damn impressive, considering her age and the fact she wasn't nearly as boring as her peers.

Shelly [who was born from a union of a philosopher and a writer, who grew up around vogue writers] by age 18, had done the following:

Stolen another woman's husband (Percy Shelley) and joined the Lord Byron crew, had a miscarriage, had the woman whose husband she stole commit suicide, and had one of her sisters commit suicide. She went through a shitload of bad stuff before that story came out, which started when the Byron crew were telling ghost stories to pass the time [Byron's story is included in some editions of the book. Shelley pwned him] and was developed further by her husband's patronising attempts to appraise and develop what writing skill she had. Ironically she overshadowed him in modern eyes but I'm not sure that's entirely deserved- Percy was a very clever writer in his own right.

Mary answers that question herself in the intro to the book.


Yes, but what doesn't strike you? Some qualities of the work that you can or can't point to.

It's not scientifically objective. But this doesn't mean we're not talking about objective qualities, meant in the ordinary sense of tangible, external, definable, and so on.

It depends on the work; it could be the overall feeling or it could be some element that I disagree with. Sometimes something works here but doesn't work there, or just doesn't work at all period.

Now that I understand your meaning of 'objective' [I thought you meant 'universally recognised', 'external', 'not subjective', 'of uniform opinion' etc] then I'm more inclined to agree with you, but [and I'm sure you'd agree] people's aesthetic experiences vary so heavily on the same material that a solid ruling on what constitutes objective [as in 'not subjective'] 'good' art is very difficult in the very least.


lol, Cats.

We are the hollow men...

Shut your heathenous mouth, meatbag!

AAAhmed46
29th June 09, 12:35 AM
OFF TO WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!

DAYoung
4th July 09, 05:12 PM
Right. So I win the thread, then.

As you were.

Kiko
4th July 09, 05:36 PM
I'm sorry I don't know what came over me there.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/funny-pictures-fat-cat-ate-book.jpg

Toby Christensen
4th July 09, 11:23 PM
I want to get a copy of the Margaret Cavendish book "The Blazing World"

Also "The Canterville Ghost" by Wilde teaches very good lessons about violence, love and forgiveness.

nihilist
5th July 09, 12:07 AM
I want to get a copy of the Margaret Cavendish book "The Blazing World"

Also "The Canterville Ghost" by Wilde teaches very good lessons about violence, love and forgiveness.

So you're saying Wilde sucks?

Toby Christensen
5th July 09, 12:18 AM
Either you're trying to just waste time and bandwidth or you're serious.

I'm not going to try figuring this one out.

Toby Christensen
5th July 09, 12:20 AM
Besides, Reese, we already have three unreasonable "intellects" on Sociocide (Chardin, FFF and Roid Monkey)

That niche is more stuffed than an obese man's arsehole.

nihilist
5th July 09, 12:20 AM
This is the "classics that suck" thread, remember?

nihilist
5th July 09, 12:22 AM
Besides, Reese, we already have three unreasonable "intellects" on Sociocide (Chardin, FFF and Roid Monkey)

That niche is more stuffed than an obese man's arsehole.

Get off your soapbox before I fly down there and knock you off off it.

Toby Christensen
5th July 09, 12:32 AM
*picks up soapbox and hurls it at Reese*

Toby Christensen
5th July 09, 12:33 AM
Besides, I LIKE the extra 2ft I get off this thing when I stand on it.

nihilist
5th July 09, 12:51 AM
Besides, I LIKE the extra 2ft I get off this thing when I stand on it.


Well then, since your head is at waist level...

Toby Christensen
5th July 09, 01:59 AM
How so? What are you, 9ft tall or something?

nihilist
5th July 09, 03:08 AM
I looked carefully at your picture.
A normal person's groin is at 1/2 their total height whereas yours is at less than 1/3.
A normal persons head is 1/8 their total height whereas yours is approx. 1/6th.

Clearly you are deformed so get to work, midget.

bob
5th July 09, 03:28 AM
Plus, what's with that expression Toby? It looks like you were trying to smile but it kinda came out upside down didn't it tiger?

Come on I know you've got it in you, let's see you let that sunshine out on the world!

nihilist
5th July 09, 09:41 AM
When he laces his fingers together like that it signifies the spiritual bond with another midget that he wishes he had and that is obviously so painfully missing in his life.

Toby Christensen
5th July 09, 05:20 PM
It's a really shitty photo.

Reese is starting to sound like Happeh, looking for significance that isn't there.

Also, I hardly ever smile. What makes you lot so special I should smile for YOU?

P.S. My head is actually huge.

Cullion
5th July 09, 05:23 PM
Toby isn't a midget, that photograph is an artefact of him having a few spare pounds and it being taken from an angle slightly above him.

Toby Christensen
5th July 09, 05:33 PM
Thanks Cuillion. Yes the camera was at an angle and yes I was a fatty but if YOU went to the restaurants around here you would be too.

socratic
5th July 09, 07:05 PM
Toby isn't a midget, that photograph is an artefact of him having a few spare pounds and it being taken from an angle slightly above him.

Sure, sure, stick up for the Midget....

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
5th July 09, 11:46 PM
Toby's picture has:

-Bad angle
-Bad pose
-Yeah he was kind of tubby
-The crotch of his pants is hanging around his knees. Shoot for something that gives your boys room to breath and no more, for a taller look.

Harpy
5th July 09, 11:50 PM
I looked carefully at your picture.
A normal person's groin is at 1/2 their total height whereas yours is at less than 1/3.

Typical. No one calls out Reese for staring at Toby's groin.

Toby Christensen
6th July 09, 12:41 AM
Well I'm calling YOU out dear.

Just THINK of the offspring!

Huge heads, tiny feet and TITS.

nihilist
6th July 09, 01:57 AM
[throws up in mouth a little]

Harpy
6th July 09, 02:22 AM
*seppuku*