|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:14:10 GMT -8
FV:
I just realized it's kind of funny that this forum was all harmonious in our Buffy love and then I posted a comment saying "I get this odd feeling I'm beginning to sound rather anti-Buffy now", which led to this thread and me sounding really anti-Buffy, which would probably not have happened if I had never brought it up in the first place.
Also, this is now my most-posted-in thread. My crystal ball is doing well.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:14:22 GMT -8
Mike:
I don't think the disclaimer is meaningless at all. It serves the very specific purpose of setting up the context in which my opinions will be filtered through, which will hopefully allow people who disagree with them to still maintain an understanding of where I'm coming from. I actually spent significant time thinking about the content of that first paragraph.
But no matter. I have no qualms with moving on!
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:14:32 GMT -8
Scott:
My most posted thread is still that "Heroes vs. Villians bracket" thread, which was a completely unserious thread about completely unserious stuff.
It was also the "Troll Jeremy Day" thread which led to him writing the post on The Wire and getting slammed on Reddit. I think I actually have to stop posting on this thread so that record doesn't get overtaken.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:14:44 GMT -8
FV:
Oh, I don't think that, within the context of the review, the disclaimer is meaningless; it's vitally important. I was arguing that, since that's the way of speaking all of us here have adopted, there's no reason that it should make your reviews any different in how they're phrased to this discussion, or any other forum thread.
And Mike's most posted thread apparently has like 150 comments from him. I don't see that getting beaten.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:14:56 GMT -8
Iguana:
My most posted thread, on the other hand, is "Vampire Diaries." Eh... ew. How'd I ever manage that? Now I have two reasons to spam this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:15:07 GMT -8
FV:
Better get it fixed quick. The great Iguana cannot be seen to be a fan of a show so silly and frivolous as TVD.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:15:40 GMT -8
FV:
*cackles maniacally*
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:15:53 GMT -8
Mike: Look, even with tone misconceptions, this thread has not once devolved into personal attacks. No matter how strongly we might disagree with each other or misinterpret each others' intent, no one's calling each other an idiot or a poopy head. Remember that if you ever decide to head out again on the lonely and dangerous internet road (iRoad?)...
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:16:13 GMT -8
FV:
It's pretty impressive, actually, that we can have a discussion such as this (where everyone is obviously very opinionated) and we managed eight or so pages without any trouble at all, and when we did have trouble it was fairly mild and was resolved quickly. This is probably the best advert for CriticallyTouched as a mature and responsible community we've ever had.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:16:23 GMT -8
Keith:
Interesting that both Mike and Noah managed to offer excuses for the S7 decline of Buffy.
My words have been pretty well picked apart, but I'm not sure I see a solid reason why we should simply ignore the plotting problems of S7, or for that matter the overall terrible and artless S1, when assessing if Buffy belongs among the best shows in TV history. Noah does a credible job of explaining why the show is as worthwhile as any other despite it flaws, a view I don't necessarily disagree with by the way, but that's not really the issue at hand.
TV is more than art and ought to be judged as such. Buffy may have touched you more than any other show, but that doesn't make it great. It doesn't even make it good. As FV says, you can be touched by S8 of Dexter, but the fact that you were itself provides no support for a claim that that's even a passable season of TV.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:16:43 GMT -8
Noah:
This is a very complex discussion, and so it's not surprising that lines are getting crossed.
Quote: Look at Noah's first comment, the one that everyone adored. "An image is an artistic medium, but not the art itself." "Buffy the Vampire Slayer is not about vampires, or realism, or authority or anything like that". Those are opinions, and fairly contentious ones at that, and yet they are stated outright and with no room for interpretation
I'm very surprised to see you make this argument, because I thought that I had been clear. I've said multiple times that those comments are my definition of art. I'm not requiring you to accept them. You have clearly stated that you disagree with them, and I'm okay with that. So, the first thing we are debating is the definition of art. Mine is as stated above, and yours is "a painting". That's one conversation.
Running parallel to that conversation is one about subjectivity and objectivity. It's going in the same direction, because there is in the first discussion a question about the art being in the material or in the beholder, which is a case of the subject/object distinction, but this conversation ultimately does not meet that conversation (except perhaps at infinity, but that's neither here nor there). The point of this discussion is not, what is the definition of art?, but rather, Can we arrive at an objective metric of the value of a given (in this case) TV show, which can be used to objectively compare different (in this case) series. These are not the same conversation, but your argument here assumes that they are.
(To make this very clear, I was not saying that Buffy is objectively greater art than other shows because my definition is objectively true and yours objectively isn't. I explicitly rejected the notion of objective comparison, especially with respect to greatness, several times.)
In that vein: Quote: I think I still need to clarify what I meant when I said ‘objective’, since I think that is causing a great deal of miscommunication on this thread. What I mean, in the simplest terms, is an opinion which is based on real, genuine critique and thought, one that takes into account such things as emotion and spirituality, but which is ruled by reason and not emotion.
a) There are many problems with this definition. For example, do you think that Mike's reviews are based on real, genuine critique and thought? What about my comments? I thought about it, so I think it's got thought. and it was genuine opinion. And I don't think that it's an irrational opinion either. It was coherent to others, wasn't it? Do you see what I'm getting at?
b) "Ruled by reason and not emotion." First of all, who's to say what's reasonable? I think it's been show very clearly that you cannot measure something as esoteric as "greatness" or "spirituality". if you think that you can, tell me! Second, you are making a value judgment. Note the word "judgment", as in, yours. Your personal, subjective judgment. By what objective criteria can you say that emotion is not the appropriate way to critique a show? You think that it is. This is part of what Mike is having a big problem with: you are saying that your opinion is objective, factual. It isn't, for all the reasons articulated over many posts.
Quote: What you argue is the very essence of subjectivity.
Yes. But so is what you argue. You just want it be objective because it's what you think. Besides, my whole point is that I'm working within subjective experience! Being subjective doesn't make something non-existent, non-empirical, non-rational, or non-applicable to multiple persons or phenomena.
Quote: Buffy is intrinsically tied to the television medium, as is The Sopranos, as is Breaking Bad, as is any show you can name. A message or theme or human truth is only as strong as the vehicle through which it is conveyed.
We have very different opinions about this. For example, in religious music there are themes like redemption and salvation etc. Are those themes any less important or powerful because the choir doesn't sing them very well? They try to, and they have a real experience of the themes, but it comes from an imperfect crafting of the medium of those themes. I don't think that that in any way diminishes their subjective experience.
Also, an interesting consequence of this statement is that other shows are better crafted have better themes because they are better crafted. I think you have to defend that claim.
Quote: I’m puzzled that you seem to think the artistic qualities you champion are unique to Buffy, or somehow lacking in the other great shows.
I've been clear (haven't I?) that I'm not in any way rendering a judgment on other shows. I'm only talking about Buffy. I have said several times that I haven't seen the other shows.
Quote: The problem with this is that it is far, far too open to be of any use. Whether something moves or transforms a person has as much to do with the viewer as it does the art; I brought up Harry Potter and Dexter, and noted that both could be seen as fulfilling your criterion, despite that they are quite self-apparently inferior to, say, the works of Tolstoy or David Chase.
Your second statement exposes your first. You don't like it because it doesn't give you a way to say that your opinion is correct with any claim to objectivity.
My definition does not say that they are equal. Harry Potter is not self-apparently worse than, equal to, or better than Anna Karenina within my definition, because such a comparison is meaningless within it. You don't have to agree with that. Just don't say that I'm objectively wrong (which by your definition means that an rational person would have to agree that my definition is ridiculous, and I don't think you've made that argument).
Quote: If all that you need to be a contender for the best TV show ever is the ability to transform and affect the viewer, why exactly is Angel not better than Buffy?
a) I've already explained that such a comparison is meaningless b) I think Angel is full of transcendental moments. The examples you give of "Reprise/Epiphay" are right on the money. I would add, "Lullaby", "Sleep Tight", "Tomorrow" (here comes the angry mob), "Deep Down", and "Home". To me the pinnacle of the show was "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been", in terms of craftsmanship (notice that "To me"). For goodness sake, I'm reviewing a Minear show! Angel pretty much was one in seasons 2-3. c) This opening a whole 'nother can of worms, but I would use Angel as an example of just hoe deep and sophisticated the project that Buffy/Angel was working on was. Here's a quote from Vince Gilligan about his show's philosophy:
"If religion is a reaction of man, and nothing more, it seems to me that it represents a human desire for wrongdoers to be punished. I hate the idea of Idi Amin living in Saudi Arabia for the last 25 years of his life. That galls me to no end. I feel some sort of need for Biblical atonement, or justice, or something. I like to believe there is some comeuppance, that karma kicks in at some point, even if it takes years or decades to happen. My girlfriend says this great thing that's become my philosophy as well. 'I want to believe there's a heaven. But I can't not believe there's a hell."
Basically, it's predicated on the idea that immoral actions must have consequences. Angel is about the fact that they usually don't, and how you live in that world. To my mind, at least, that is a much more sophisticated philosophy, because, in my experience, immoral actions routinely go unpunished by the universe. So Angel is exploring something that is of more practical use, and which hits at deeper questions, such as, If immoral actions go unpunished, are moral actions meaningless? That's a real danger. I think a lot of people feel that way. Angel does us a huge service by giving us the famous lines, "If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." I've told that line to people who've never seen a second of either show, and it resonates, deeply, and helps people to make sense of a reality that had previously stymied their ability to work effectively in the world. It sure as hell has inspired me.
Quote: You might think any flaws are rendered meaningless by the positives; I think that such an approach renders meaningless everything.
Ummm...: Quote: Me: But the lows are often used to sculpt more magnificent highs, which, while not completely excusing them, makes up for them.
Quote: Objective arguments can and should be made to support these conclusions.
No. They can't!
Quote: but I don’t think a few fleeting glimpses of transcendence make Buffy a great work of art, much less a great TV show. To be those things, it would need to sustain that transcendence for its entire run, and be able to do it unfettered by the mischaracterization and poor plotting that plagued the series for much of its run.
Here's the problem I have: you make such a claim, which was directly addressed by earlier points of mine, but yet you do not address those points in turn. How are we to make progress? I hope it's clear from this post and the last post why I object to this kind of language. You're judgng my way of looking at things by using your way of looking at things, and then saying that your way of looking at things is objective and mine isn't, therefore mine is wrong. But a) Your way of looking at things does not apply in mine, and b) your way of looking at things is not objective, either in your definition, which is not a definition because it isn't functional, or the actualy definition of the word.
Sorry about that being repetitive, but I felt it was necessary for clarity and completeness.
Quote: discussion has led to some of the most interesting arguments we've seen on this site, certainly since I've been here, and I'd hate to quell it with an 'agree to disagree' when there's still more gold to be mined. I think you're misinterpreting my desire for continued discourse as aggression.
Something we wholeheartedly agree on! This has been a very fun discussion.
EDIT: Keith:
Quote: Interesting that both Mike and Noah managed to offer excuses for the S7 decline of Buffy.
I think I gave a reason, not an excuse. I refer you to my self-quote above where I said that problems are not excused by great moments, only much less important.
Quote: TV is more than art and ought to be judged as such. Buffy may have touched you more than any other show, but that doesn't make it great. It doesn't even make it good. As FV says, you can be touched by S8 of Dexter, but the fact that you were itself provides no support for a claim that that's even a passable season of TV.
This goes back to us caring about different things. I care about the reasons for excellence, you care that it be as excellent as possible, and you like it to have a reason.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I know what it means, and it suffers from many of the problems that I've alluded to above, subject/object discussion, what is art?, comparison problems etc.
I also want to point out that Odi et amo wrote a brilliant exegesis of the philosophical underpinning of Buffy like 6 pages ago. For anybody who wants to talk about themes/craftsmanship, that's some great intellectual craftsmanship.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:17:03 GMT -8
Mike:
You're right, Keith. That person would have to provide a better argument than simply "it moved me." But if he/she went into why it moved them, in detail, and in a way that was accurately based on the "text" of the show, I wouldn't have an issue with their statement, even if I still felt differently.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:17:15 GMT -8
Noah:
In my case, at least, the argument was not that it moved me, but that it changed me. I actually do things differently now. And it's not just me. Many people have had that experience. There's a credible intellectual school of thought that considers that the essence of artistic experience. That's leaving craftsmanship to one side, though. Though i still think I've made a case for Buffy being at least frequently well-crafted.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:17:29 GMT -8
Iguana:
Noah wrote: Quote: Look at Noah's first comment, the one that everyone adored. "An image is an artistic medium, but not the art itself." "Buffy the Vampire Slayer is not about vampires, or realism, or authority or anything like that". Those are opinions, and fairly contentious ones at that, and yet they are stated outright and with no room for interpretation
I'm very surprised to see you make this argument, because I thought that I had been clear. I've said multiple times that those comments are my definition of art. I'm not requiring you to accept them. You have clearly stated that you disagree with them, and I'm okay with that. So, the first thing we are debating is the definition of art. Mine is as stated above, and yours is "a painting". That's one conversation.
Quick addendum: You were plenty clear. FV wasn't arguing with your statements here. He was simply observing that in a debate people assert opinions in strong terms without the need for disclaimers. He was merely using you as an example in his debate with Mike over the tone thing.
|
|