Anti-intellectualism, younger generations, and literary criticism

glennmagusharvey

I wanted to respond to Juan's comment in a thread that isn't a drama importer.

> Two) As Malkavian mentioned, what you mentioned is not old, by any way of means. Most of the people who have been practically canonized by literature critics were, at one time or another, so called enfante terrible writers who dared to do things people at the time considered shocking and the like.

My point is actually not about finding meaning in "enfante terrible" creators and their unconventional works.

My point is about about finding meaning in works that aren't generally considered great/important/significant.

To everyone else: Feel free to discuss anything related to these issues of criticism, the role of critics, anti-intellectualism, people's reverence of older lit, people's deference to established critical traditions, etc..

DonZabu

Here's a simple rule that every lit critter should try to follow: when analyzing a work, never put more thought into the analyses than the creators put into a work.

RedEyedAbyss

"My point is about about finding meaning in works that aren't generally considered great/important/significant."

Since humans are behind stories, everything has a meaning. Even if one claims that it shouldn't have a meaning, that is a meaning in itself. As for significant, I believe that has more to do with impact on the medium or society as opposed to how much more meaningful it is than something else. Video games are the best examples of this, since what was a big deal back then is trite now (more so than any other medium in recent memory).

RocketDude

^^Which reminds me of something: According to Phil Collins, he doesn't know the meaning of his song "In The Air Tonight."

Malkavian

My point is about about finding meaning in works that aren't generally considered great/important/significant.

But this is done. There are scholars who study the pulps, comic books, modern arts. A professor and I even talked about whether modern superhero blockbusters could be important to the history of cinema and he agreed that they already were.

Academia isn't a single monolith. It's comprised of people. For every stuffed shirt who disdains the Plebian work, there's at least one who's fascinated in finding out the importance of reality television and giant robots.

MillerCross

Ugh, how come I missed this thread. >_<

My point is actually not about finding meaning in "enfante terrible" creators and their unconventional works.

My point is about about finding meaning in works that aren't generally considered great/important/significant.

This is again, another assumption that is based on a skewed perception of literary criticism that I see a lot: That critics and academics only care about the srs bsnss stories like Shakespeare and the like. Or that film academics don't watch anything but Scorsese films. 

It is frankly insulting. As it implies that critics dismiss works based on the criteria that it's not enough high brow for them. Yes there are critics like that. But not all critics (Hell, not even a majority) fall in that camp.

Here's a simple rule that every lit critter should try to follow: when analyzing a work, never put more thought into the analyses than the creators put into a work.

I find this line of thought restrictive as it is pretty much based on what the author tried to say, rather than what the text says. If you're here to analyse a work, then analyse the work, not the author. 

Yes, there are authors who deliberately make meaningless work. It doesn't mean that the text doesn't transmit something and that the message shouldn't be at least tried to be interpreted.

Gelzo

Maybe I missed something or I'm not up to date on the definitions, but where does anti-intellectualism tie in to this?

vandro

Dismissing critics as shakepeare lovers who care not for the modern, and hating on older works because of that, is anti-intellectualism

Gelzo

Is that necessarily opposition to the goals of criticism, or could it just be opposition towards the perceived culture of critics? 

MillerCross

Sometimes the bent of the criticism is towards the works themselves on the grounds that they try to hard to be intelligent. 

Malkavian

The problem also has to do that said people will often use things like 'popcorn film', 'mindless entertainment', or 'turn off your brain' as an impenetrable defense for any flaws a film might have. These also tend to be the people that demonize classics.

DonZabu

I find this line of thought restrictive as it is pretty much based on what the author tried to say, rather than what the text says. If you're here to analyse a work, then analyse the work, not the author. 

Yes, there are authors who deliberately make meaningless work. It doesn't mean that the text doesn't transmit something and that the message shouldn't at least tried to be interpreted.

If there's something in the work that the author didn't put in intentionally (so long as we're not talking about subconscious things here, which is a can of worms in its own right), then it would have to be accidental, or else external to the author's spectrum of knowledge or understanding. The problem with this is the sheer breadth of different and seemingly unrelated meanings and experiences that could be considered external to any given author.

Maybe there is some value to all that, but for my money, how the work stands as the product of the author and his/her experience and knowledge is much more valuable and interesting, precisely because that understanding creates limits and boundaries, and therefore a theoretical point where we can understand the work completely.

tl;dr: Death of the Author is too broad.

^^^ My thinking is, they believe that the undesirable culture of critics is endemic to criticism itself.

vandro

You turn off your brain for Conan the Barbarian, it is still a good film

Malkavian

The problem is Zabu, is that the experience of a novel doesn't end when it's written. How it's received is just as important, if not moreso, than how it's written. In a class we spent an entire hour discussing about whether or not anyone other than the author could truly understand the work was about, and so personal interpretations are important. They are what lead to Bela Lugosi as Dracula and gay Batman & Superman.

^I'm not against a movie that just decides to have fun and be an all-out crazy fest of stupidity, but that doesn't excuse ignoring the basic necessary rules of storytelling.

MillerCross

If there's something in the work that the author didn't put in intentionally (so long as we're not talking about subconscious things here, which is a can of worms in its own right), then it would have to be accidental, or else external to the author's spectrum of knowledge or understanding. The problem with this is the sheer breadth of different and seemingly unrelated meanings and experiences that could be considered external to any given author.

And I think this meanings deserve to be studied as much as whatever the author intended to say. In fact, that's the only way of measuring quality to a work (Or at least, the next best thing) which is via Ebert's law (It doesn't matter what the movie's about, but how is it about it)

If the author is transmitting messages that outright contradict the intended themes and subjects of the work, then clearly the author has failed as a communicator. And for us to know that, there's only one way to find out, and it's via studying the work on our hands and not wondering whether the author did put thoughts into something or not.

In fact, I apply the same rule I apply to normal communication. When someone says something unintentionally offensive, they still said something offensive, regardless of intention. This doesn't automatically tell us that the person we're speaking to is, say, racist. But it tells us right away that the person we're speaking to can't communicate their thoughts properly and whether they like it or not, they have to deal with the fact that they misspoke, and they either have to explain what they meant or deal with the consequences.

vandro

Malkavian: I was making a point on your favor, there are good "brainless action" films.

Malkavian

Ah ok. Point taken. ^_^

Vorpy

ワード

Malkavian

Because they're really really bad.

People will forget them come a year or two and rage at something else wildly successful and terrible.

Vorpy

ワード

vandro

What's exactly bad with Sucker Punch, on your words, Malkavian.

Vivi

In the vain of a cliche middle school girl, if you really didn't like them you wouldn't talk about them all the time to the point where it becomes, "Oh hey. There's Rachel. She says she hates Jake like everyday, but she really wants to get to 2nd base with him."

Vorpy

ワード

Malkavian

^^^Fair enough, and you're just as free to gush about them as other people are to hate on them, but I've enjoyed plenty of movies I've recognized weren't good like Underworld or The Room.

^^^Haven't seen it, but the impression I got was that it would have the same glitzy overemphasis on spectacle that bored me in 300 as well.

^^That's a really simplistic look at it. Maybe they're just angry that something so bad is so popular, albeit fleetingly. Honestly, this could be reversed easily. Why are fans of these highly successful blockbusters so defensive of movies that are incredibly popular, unless there's some niggling doubt that they aren't as good as you try to convince yourself? Going either way is flawed projection logic.

^Yes. How dare someone supposedly bring up valid points.

vandro

I love Underworld, I have yet to see the prequel...GO WEREWOLVES! I MEAN, LYCANS!

Malkavian

I enjoy the hell out of the movies but they're absolute failures of storytelling.

But hey, Kate Beckinsale in a leather corset! Fun times all around!

Vivi

Rachel likes Jake because her hormones are acting up and the hate she feels when she sees that proud jerk parade around that lax field excites her.

Vivi

But to answer your question they defend the movies because people like you won't shut up.

Vorpy

ワード

Malkavian

^^And we attack them because people like you won't stop gushing about them. Isn't strawmanning fun?

^Okay, seriously, you're the person who brought up Transformers and then you get mad at me for saying they're bad in a thread about critical analysis. Take a step back, Vorps.

Vorpy

ワード