Poll: Literary/Film Criticism = the Art of BSing?

[archvile93]

Yes it is. It boils down into two catagories.

1. If the plot is convoluted, incredibly vague, or makes no sense whatsoever: It is a deep, emotionally driven masterpiece.

2. If the plot is easy to follow: it is shallow drivel for the redneck masses. this also applies if it is a comedy, whether or not its actually funny.

 

[McNinja]

You can find some kind of meaning in anything. The back of my deodorant says "Apply to underarms only." Obviously, this shows that the author values sophistication, using "underarms" instead of a more common word like "armpits," and he was probably raised in a family that emphasized education. The conciseness of the sentence symbolizes man's ability to interpret beyond the capabilities of any other animal, which indirectly suggests the dominance of humans and gives the work a deep historical relevance.

Underarm was chosen as it sounds better to consumers than armpit.

"Stick it in your pit then wave it around you you smell better" was probably the first phrase left on the cutting room floor.

On topic, I am currently in an American Lit class in college. If the thesis is not supported by anything in the story, or we start making stuff up that isn't in the story, we get a "where the dickens did you pull this from?" We have to support our thesis otherwise it is garbage, no matter how much "opinion" someone put into it.

 

[thylasos]

It depends entirely on the case, and the author of said criticism. It can be incredibly fatuous at times, certainly; at other times it can be a searing insight into the creative process.

 

[Togs]

For a long long time I wanted to be an actor, right up until year 13 of my A levels when we were sitting in class reading through essays we'd written on how'd we'd stage a play.
One guy had written about what floorboards he wanted and how they'd signify "the earthy struggle of the protagonist", my teacher spent 20 minutes saying how brilliant this guy was- I bit my tongue so hard I drew blood to stop myself from laughing, before I walked out and never went back.

In my mind the moment you start getting pretentious your BS'ing, so many times Ive just wanted repeat the MST3K mantra at these "critics".

Its just a show/film/book/song/game, just relax and enjoy it

 

[Togs]

Yes it is. It boils down into two catagories.

1. If the plot is convoluted, incredibly vague, or makes no sense whatsoever: It is a deep, emotionally driven masterpiece.

2. If the plot is easy to follow: it is shallow drivel for the redneck masses. this also applies if it is a comedy, whether or not its actually funny.

Someone buy this man a beer

 

[Cheesus333]

When I did my English Literature GCSE, I bullshat my way through at least ten essays and got an A* on every one. Now that I'm doing AS Level English, I'm bullshitting my way through that too.

I don't think it's fair to say that all literary analysis is a load of crap, but in my experience a hell of a lot of it is. You have to push certain things very far to squeeze any significance out of them, but I suppose saying that the curtain dividing the house in A Streetcar Named Desire is 'just a curtain' isn't quite as interesting. I'd say it's an extension of the human need to find meaning in the meaningless, but that's just my opinion. Sometimes there's a surprising amount of meaning to be found in what might seem unimportant.

 

[trooper6]

Yes it is. It boils down into two catagories.

1. If the plot is convoluted, incredibly vague, or makes no sense whatsoever: It is a deep, emotionally driven masterpiece.

2. If the plot is easy to follow: it is shallow drivel for the redneck masses. this also applies if it is a comedy, whether or not its actually funny.

Then you don't know cultural criticism very well. Jane Radway wrote an entire book about Romance novels. Judith Halberstam seems to be quite enamored of Dude, Where's My Car. I know a wonderful scholar who writes primarily on the porn industry.

Not all academics are elitist snobs. As a matter of fact, some of them grew up on welfare or lived in the mountains and have eaten squirrel...like me for example.

 

[archvile93]

Yes it is. It boils down into two catagories.

1. If the plot is convoluted, incredibly vague, or makes no sense whatsoever: It is a deep, emotionally driven masterpiece.

2. If the plot is easy to follow: it is shallow drivel for the redneck masses. this also applies if it is a comedy, whether or not its actually funny.

Then you don't know cultural criticism very well. Jane Radway wrote an entire book about Romance novels. Judith Halberstam seems to be quite enamored of Dude, Where's My Car. I know a wonderful scholar who writes primarily on the porn industry.

Not all academics are elitist snobs. As a matter of fact, some of them grew up on welfare or lived in the mountains and have eaten squirrel...like me for example.

First of all, there are exceptions to every rule, not that you ever see anything but the strangest movies winning Oscars. It's always been my opinion that the most random movies get the best critical reviews is because most critcs have their heads so far up their own ass they could almost implode. They like to keep everyone thinking they're geniuses, so when something comes along they don't get (or is just random) they say it's deep and for people of their intillect. Add some words about something being symbolic, all the while using the biggest words you know, and there you go. Second, you don't need to be rich to be an elitist snob. Just look at nearly anyone who frequents Starbucks.

 

[MadCapMunchkin]

People get different responses from different things. Take for example, Roger Ebert, he basically gets down to saying whether he liked it or not. He will often reference other films that are like whatever he's reviewing to highlight something or bring up a point, but in the end his reviews are just his opinions. Someone else may say something completely different about any given film (though not many will about Human Centipede). Is their opinion any less valid? No!

...And I'm not particularly fond of his blatant dismissive of the Slasher Film genre, either, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well as literature is not exact science it's hard to tell how useful/pointless a critique really is, and when the possibilities for interpretation are infinite you really have a hard time deciding if someone is on the money or straight up bullshiting.

I honestly stay away from such things as the discussions are as meaningless as the critiques themselves.

 

[trooper6]

Yes it is. It boils down into two catagories.

1. If the plot is convoluted, incredibly vague, or makes no sense whatsoever: It is a deep, emotionally driven masterpiece.

2. If the plot is easy to follow: it is shallow drivel for the redneck masses. this also applies if it is a comedy, whether or not its actually funny.

Then you don't know cultural criticism very well. Jane Radway wrote an entire book about Romance novels. Judith Halberstam seems to be quite enamored of Dude, Where's My Car. I know a wonderful scholar who writes primarily on the porn industry.

Not all academics are elitist snobs. As a matter of fact, some of them grew up on welfare or lived in the mountains and have eaten squirrel...like me for example.

First of all, there are exceptions to every rule, not that you ever see anything but the strangest movies winning Oscars. It's always been my opinion that the most random movies get the best critical reviews is because most critcs have their heads so far up their own ass they could almost implode. They like to keep everyone thinking they're geniuses, so when something comes along they don't get (or is just random) they say it's deep and for people of their intillect. Add some words about something being symbolic, all the while using the biggest words you know, and there you go. Second, you don't need to be rich to be an elitist snob. Just look at nearly anyone who frequents Starbucks.

1) The Oscars are voted on by critics. They are voted on by members of the Academy...which is made up of actors, directors, films editors, i.e. people working in the industry.
2) I don't know what you mean by never anything but the strangest movies winning Oscars. Perhaps you don't pay attention to the Oscars very closely, but the Best Picture winner is full of mainstream blockbusters--Titanic, The Departed, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Rocky, and so on. It isn't all King's Speech. Also, King's Speech isn't all that strange of a movie. And it certainly isn't convoluted, vague, or laking of sense. It's pretty straightforward.
3) There are a lot of really complicated films--And I'm not talking about Crash, I'm talking about Inland Empire...which got no nominations for anything.
4) Film Criticism is not the same as a Film Review. Literary Criticism is not the same as a Book Review. Music Criticism is not the same as an Album Review. And dealing with popular culture is not an exception to proove a rule. It is a regular part of scholarship, and has started becoming so since at least the 1960s. There are multiple academic journals dedicated to popular music. If you are an academic who studies culture, then you study what is in culture--that includes "Honkytonk Bedonkadonk," Metallica, Justin Bieber, you name it.

If academia didn't care about popular culture, then I wouldn't have a job. Because that is all I teach. Universities all over the US and the UK have classes in the History of Rock'n'Roll, Jazz, the Blues, etc.

You have an inaccurate and dated view of academia and the people in it and what they do.

 

[archvile93]

Yes it is. It boils down into two catagories.

1. If the plot is convoluted, incredibly vague, or makes no sense whatsoever: It is a deep, emotionally driven masterpiece.

2. If the plot is easy to follow: it is shallow drivel for the redneck masses. this also applies if it is a comedy, whether or not its actually funny.

Then you don't know cultural criticism very well. Jane Radway wrote an entire book about Romance novels. Judith Halberstam seems to be quite enamored of Dude, Where's My Car. I know a wonderful scholar who writes primarily on the porn industry.

Not all academics are elitist snobs. As a matter of fact, some of them grew up on welfare or lived in the mountains and have eaten squirrel...like me for example.

First of all, there are exceptions to every rule, not that you ever see anything but the strangest movies winning Oscars. It's always been my opinion that the most random movies get the best critical reviews is because most critcs have their heads so far up their own ass they could almost implode. They like to keep everyone thinking they're geniuses, so when something comes along they don't get (or is just random) they say it's deep and for people of their intillect. Add some words about something being symbolic, all the while using the biggest words you know, and there you go. Second, you don't need to be rich to be an elitist snob. Just look at nearly anyone who frequents Starbucks.

1) The Oscars are voted on by critics. They are voted on by members of the Academy...which is made up of actors, directors, films editors, i.e. people working in the industry.
2) I don't know what you mean by never anything but the strangest movies winning Oscars. Perhaps you don't pay attention to the Oscars very closely, but the Best Picture winner is full of mainstream blockbusters--Titanic, The Departed, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Rocky, and so on. It isn't all King's Speech. Also, King's Speech isn't all that strange of a movie. And it certainly isn't convoluted, vague, or laking of sense. It's pretty straightforward.
3) There are a lot of really complicated films--And I'm not talking about Crash, I'm talking about Inland Empire...which got no nominations for anything.
4) Film Criticism is not the same as a Film Review. Literary Criticism is not the same as a Book Review. Music Criticism is not the same as an Album Review. And dealing with popular culture is not an exception to proove a rule. It is a regular part of scholarship, and has started becoming so since at least the 1960s. There are multiple academic journals dedicated to popular music. If you are an academic who studies culture, then you study what is in culture--that includes "Honkytonk Bedonkadonk," Metallica, Justin Bieber, you name it.

If academia didn't care about popular culture, then I wouldn't have a job. Because that is all I teach. Universities all over the US and the UK have classes in the History of Rock'n'Roll, Jazz, the Blues, etc.

You have an inaccurate and dated view of academia and the people in it and what they do.

Hmm, I guess that's all you hear about then. Alright then.

 

[Ace of Spades]

That's not entirely correct. Good literary criticism requires that you actually know what you're talking about, but it's possible for someone to take refuge in the ambiguity of different interpretations of something, as shown below.

I once had a quiz in American Literature for which I had not done the reading, and I got a 10 out of 10, whereas my friend Will got an 8 out of 10 despite the fact that he did the reading. That alone proves that it is possible to pass off thinly disguised bullshit as the real thing, but that isn't enough to say that all literary criticism is thinly disguised bullshit. There are plenty of legitimately profound meanings in literature and it does take some skill to identify those themes and apply them to reality.

 

[trooper6]

Well as literature is not exact science it's hard to tell how useful/pointless a critique really is, and when the possibilities for interpretation are infinite you really have a hard time deciding if someone is on the money or straight up bullshiting.

I honestly stay away from such things as the discussions are as meaningless as the critiques themselves.

But interpretation isn't infinite in practice. There are many different ways in which people have interpreted Hitler's Mein Kampf...but no one reads it as a story about the difficulties of doing laundry. That would not be a compelling interpretation. And it would be really hard to construct a good argument to support that.

If I say, "I love you" -- there are a range of meanings that you can receive that as--based on what you know of me, how you understand the words, the tone of my voice and body language, and also the context. But it isn't infinite.

A good scholar interprets a work in context and with evidence. And doesn't do it for no reason, but to increase understanding and knowledge--to expand people's ways of seeing the world they live in. Sometimes, such as when Robert Walser wrote his book on heavy metal, it was because he saw how heavy metal was being attacked by politicians and parents groups and he wanted to, through his scholarship, help show the value of metal and its historical and cultural importance.

Good scholarship has a point. And it is well grounded. It isn't pointless, it helps us understand the world around us and also who we are.

Are there scholars who are elitist snobs? Yes.
But there are also people on this site who are elitist snobs. They hate pop music and think it isn't as deep as rock music. Or they think all academics are dumb. Or they think all console games are shallow. Or whatever.
And there are lots of academics who aren't elitist snobs. Rather, who have dedicated their life to try and advocate for people who often don't have the cultural power and respect of the rich elites who run the country. I try to make it so that the cultures that I grew up in are valued just as much as Beethoven and Opera. And I am not an exception. There are a lot of people like me.

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

At any rate, high school level is what most people have experienced and seems a perfectly reasonable base with which to base professional attitudes (to be a critic of any sort you don't need any specific degree, and it's more likely that someone who critiques films/games/music/whatever has not studied english, but has studied pop culture, music, film or general arts).

True, but again to be a good critic you still need to be logical and support your assertions with real evidence.

snip

You've explained it all so much better than I have, =) especially the part about Huck Finn. If we really were looking for "what the author really meant" there would be almost no discussion whatsoever about the "n" word. How would that sit with modern audiences?

Yes it is. It boils down into two catagories.

1. If the plot is convoluted, incredibly vague, or makes no sense whatsoever: It is a deep, emotionally driven masterpiece.

2. If the plot is easy to follow: it is shallow drivel for the redneck masses. this also applies if it is a comedy, whether or not its actually funny.

My OP was referring to academic criticism, not reviewing, but in ether situation the above is simply ridiculous.

For a long long time I wanted to be an actor, right up until year 13 of my A levels when we were sitting in class reading through essays we'd written on how'd we'd stage a play.
One guy had written about what floorboards he wanted and how they'd signify "the earthy struggle of the protagonist", my teacher spent 20 minutes saying how brilliant this guy was- I bit my tongue so hard I drew blood to stop myself from laughing, before I walked out and never went back.

In my mind the moment you start getting pretentious your BS'ing, so many times Ive just wanted repeat the MST3K mantra at these "critics".

Its just a show/film/book/song/game, just relax and enjoy it

Thing is, they are enjoying the show/film/book/song/game. Perhaps they are doing it differently from how you like to, but what's the harm in that?

When I did my English Literature GCSE, I bullshat my way through at least ten essays and got an A* on every one. Now that I'm doing AS Level English, I'm bullshitting my way through that too.

I don't think it's fair to say that all literary analysis is a load of crap, but in my experience a hell of a lot of it is. You have to push certain things very far to squeeze any significance out of them, but I suppose saying that the curtain dividing the house in A Streetcar Named Desire is 'just a curtain' isn't quite as interesting. I'd say it's an extension of the human need to find meaning in the meaningless, but that's just my opinion. Sometimes there's a surprising amount of meaning to be found in what might seem unimportant.

My guess is that you're essays were still well supported if you got that far. It might have been BS in that you didn't personally believe it, but as I mentioned in an earlier post I don't think that has any bearing on the validity of the idea itself.

I once had a quiz in American Literature for which I had not done the reading, and I got a 10 out of 10, whereas my friend Will got an 8 out of 10 despite the fact that he did the reading. That alone proves that it is possible to pass off thinly disguised bullshit as the real thing, but that isn't enough to say that all literary criticism is thinly disguised bullshit.

This might be a bit finicky, but I don't think a quiz really qualifies as criticism, even if it's in a literature class. I and many others here have noted that actual criticism needs evidence from the work you are discussing, and if you were able to pass a quiz without even reading the book then that quiz definitely didn't have anything to do with real criticism.

It's always been my opinion that the most random movies get the best critical reviews is because most critcs have their heads so far up their own ass they could almost implode. They like to keep everyone thinking they're geniuses, so when something comes along they don't get (or is just random) they say it's deep and for people of their intillect. Add some words about something being symbolic, all the while using the biggest words you know, and there you go. Second, you don't need to be rich to be an elitist snob. Just look at nearly anyone who frequents Starbucks.

That may be your opinion, but you'd be pretty hard pressed to back it up with any facts. =)

 

[archvile93]

snip

You're really digging this up, fine, how's this for evidence. You might not believe this, but I'm considered very intelligent, and actually a great writer. I'm not giving you my own opinion of myself here, my parents brother, classmates, even english college professors say this. I get whatever assignment I need to do about culteral objectisism or whatever. I get through it by pulling efverything out of my ass, much easier than thinking about it. I add some loose symbolism and quotes without really thinking about it, turn it in and get an A. Then my professor asks how I wrote something so brillient. What I want to say is that I didn't think about it at all, that I just pulled everything out of my ass. I shit on the paper, and they'rer eating it up and asking for more. I want to ask what the hell is wrong with them and why they never see that. Of corse that could jepordize my grade (and get me suspended possibly), so I lie and say that I just looked into myself and put my thoughts on paper or some shit like that. At no point in my life has this ever failed me.

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

snip

You're really digging this up, fine, how's this for evidence. You might not believe this, but I'm considered very intelligent, and actually a great writer. I'm not giving you my own opinion of myself here, my parents brother, classmates, even english college professors say this. I get whatever assignment I need to do about culteral objectisism or whatever. I get through it by pulling efverything out of my ass, much easier than thinking about it. I add some loose symbolism and quotes without really thinking about it, turn it in and get an A. Then my professor asks how I wrote something so brillient. What I want to say is that I didn't think about it at all, that I just pulled everything out of my ass. I shit on the paper, and they'rer eating it up and asking for more. I want to ask what the hell is wrong with them and why they never see that. Of corse that could jepordize my grade (and get me suspended possibly), so I lie and say that I just looked into myself and put my thoughts on paper or some shit like that. At no point in my life has this ever failed me.

That's just anecdotal evidence. It doesn't say anything about the validity of academic criticism; it only shows that you've had a number of terrible professors.

 

[Thorenus]

Literary criticism is not read and good literature can be perfectly enjoyed without having majored in English.

That is why literature departments get minimum government funding and most graduates end up teaching or flipping burgers.