OK... that clarifies your point, but I'm not sure I see the significance of such a distinction. I guess the former sounds like a more informed and meaningful criticism to make.
I don't think saying 'this looks bad, I don't wanna watch it' constitutes an expressed desire to partake in a critical discussion
Or at least, if you're going to participate in a discussion, offer points and not reactions. And there's a big difference.
Basically I have a lot of hang ups here and my opinions aren't fully formed.
if I know I'm going to dislike something I am probably not going to want to partake in discussions on it anyway. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.
But you do.
No? No.
I am not about to go to a metal forum and tell them why I don't like Mastodon. Beyond being incredibly rude, it's just a waste of time.
Two examples off the top of my head: Todd in the Shadows and Spec Ops: The Line.
Or at least, if you're going to participate in a discussion, offer points and not reactions. And there's a big difference.
Basically I have a lot of hang ups here and my opinions aren't fully formed.
if I know I'm going to dislike something I am probably not going to want to partake in discussions on it anyway. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.
But you do.
No? No.
I am not about to go to a metal forum and tell them why I don't like Mastodon. Beyond being incredibly rude, it's just a waste of time.
Two examples off the top of my head: Todd in the Shadows and Spec Ops: The Line.
Those are subjects that have come up and I've expressed my distaste for because it was relevant to what was going on at the time.
I would never go to a TGWG forum (I think Todd is on his network? I might be wrong) and talk about how I hate Todd. Spec Ops is a bit more fuzzy because talk about that could conceivably come up anywhere where video games are discussed, but I have my reasons for disliking that and those reasons don't require me to play the game.
I unfortunately have to say that there is a good point being made there, Mo. You do have an unfortunate tendency to sound aggressively flippant when other people are discussing something that you dislike in principle. I don't think you mean it that way, but...
^ That's a good answer, but still doesn't absolve the way that you dealt with those subjects when they came up.
OK... that clarifies your point, but I'm not sure I see the significance of such a distinction. I guess the former sounds like a more informed and meaningful criticism to make.
I don't think saying 'this looks bad, I don't wanna watch it' constitutes an expressed desire to partake in a critical discussion
nor even 'I watched this and I thought it sucked'
But so often I see people passing off "It's bad and I don't like it" -with or without having actually experiencing the media in question- as if it were a point and not a reaction. I don't like when people pass off a reaction as a point. And I don't really see anyone doing that here, honestly, which is why way back when my original complaint was seeing people have a kneejerk, uninformed, condescending reaction towards John Green's body of work and dressing it up like either an assessment of his quality as a writer or like he'd committed some sort of social injustice.
I unfortunately have to say that there is a good point being made there, Mo. You do have an unfortunate tendency to sound aggressively flippant when other people are discussing something that you dislike in principle. I don't think you mean it that way, but...
I've been told this before. "Aggressively flippant" is a weird phrase to me, because it implies that it's possible to aggressively not care about something. Anyway,
I actually dislikeSpec Ops: The Line, more specifically its moral, and have cited my reasons as to why many times. Todd belongs to a wider category of things I find distasteful.
I'm aware I can sometimes be abrasive on subjects like that, but I have also not brought either of them up any time recently.
OK... that clarifies your point, but I'm not sure I see the significance of such a distinction. I guess the former sounds like a more informed and meaningful criticism to make.
I don't think saying 'this looks bad, I don't wanna watch it' constitutes an expressed desire to partake in a critical discussion
nor even 'I watched this and I thought it sucked'
But so often I see people passing off "It's bad and I don't like it" -with or without having actually experiencing the media in question- as if it were a point and not a reaction. I don't like when people pass off a reaction as a point. And I don't really see anyone doing that here, honestly, which is why way back when my original complaint was seeing people have a kneejerk, uninformed, condescending reaction towards John Green's body of work and dressing it up like either an assessment of his quality as a writer or like he'd committed some sort of social injustice.
and you are now using "it's not as bad as This Group of People said it was" as a point and not a reaction, are you not?
Because throughout this entire, now multi-page discussion, I have not learned anything about why you don't dislike John Green.
Well, like I said, I don't really disagree with what you're saying. Because your assessments really weren't the thing I was complaining about initially. Alright let's just... start over for a second, okay? The issue I wanted to get at was that I find the criticisms I find of John Green on Tumblr to be irritating because they're rooted in either faulty assumptions, appending qualities to John Green that he doesn't actually have (like that he's some kind of Nice Guy), or just flippant condescension to all things sincere and self-assured.
Which is something I see a lot on Tumblr, and that's what I was trying to talk about in the ensuing conversation. For the most part, I don't really find that stuff to be much of a problem here.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Well, like I said, I don't really disagree with what you're saying. Because your assessments really weren't the thing I was complaining about initially. Alright let's just... start over for a second, okay? The issue I wanted to get at was that I find the criticisms I find of John Green on Tumblr to be irritating because they're rooted in either faulty assumptions, appending qualities to John Green that he doesn't actually have (like that he's some kind of Nice Guy), or just flippant condescension to all things sincere and self-assured.
Which is something I see a lot on Tumblr, and that's what I was trying to talk about in the ensuing conversation. For the most part, I don't really find that stuff to be much of a problem here.
Well... cultural hegemony?
Faux-irony is the norm. Effusive sincerity seems suspect either because it goes against the grain or seems like a put-on. There is a backlash to it in culture, as the emo revival nicely illustrates, but that can itself be seen as suspect by some for other reasons.
To be honest, I like sarcasm, morbidity and eccentric detachment a lot, but the kind of put-on passive-aggressive "irony" that is the current norm seems terribly insincere in itself. I like a genuinely acerbic posture, or a genuinely out-there view point - the David Byrne approach, the Thomas Ligotti angle. Being on the outside. Insincerity being "in" kills the honesty of the artifice, if you get me.
Like... I noticed last year that everyone was talking about how Pacific Rim was such a breath of fresh air because it was bright and colorful and silly and optimistic. Why is it weird now for a piece of mainstream entertainment to be happy?
Slightly different concept, I know. But the mainstreaming of this kind of thing devalues it because it's kind of intended to be subversive.
Slightly different concept, I know. But the mainstreaming of this kind of thing devalues it because it's kind of intended to be subversive.
Exactly.
On a related note...
I love tragedy. I love horror and I love pessimism. I love real, brutal, soul-crushing miserablism that makes you look around and ask why you are even alive and why it is worth bothering. I am not sure why, but I just connect deeply with terrible things happening in a way that makes me look at the world differently. But just saying, "Oh, everything sucks," is not enough, and having that as a default position just strikes me as co-opting a genuinely dangerous view to inoculate the public to the notion by making it banal or to exploit the angle to make people cry and go on about how deep you are.
Cynicism used to sell a product is certainly cynicism, but it's a disingenuous kind and frankly a bit gross.
I love tragedy. I love horror and I love pessimism. I love real, brutal, soul-crushing miserablism that makes you look around and ask why you are even alive and why it is worth bothering. I am not sure why, but I just connect deeply with terrible things happening in a way that makes me look at the world differently. But just saying, "Oh, everything sucks," is not enough, and having that as a default position just strikes me as co-opting a genuinely dangerous view to inoculate the public to the notion by making it banal or to exploit the angle to make people cry and go on about how deep you are.
Cynicism used to sell a product is certainly cynicism, but it's a disingenuous kind and frankly a bit gross.
What about when it's used for the purpose of horror?
I must admit, I quite enjoy superficial grimdarkness... I find things things that are actually, legitimately dark (e.g. Lehane's Gone Baby Gone) difficult to stomach.
Slightly different concept, I know. But the mainstreaming of this kind of thing devalues it because it's kind of intended to be subversive.
Exactly.
On a related note...
I love tragedy. I love horror and I love pessimism. I love real, brutal, soul-crushing miserablism that makes you look around and ask why you are even alive and why it is worth bothering. I am not sure why, but I just connect deeply with terrible things happening in a way that makes me look at the world differently.
See I hate things like this. Because the world very much isn't that way, and I resent having my emotions manipulated just to make me feel bad.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Every time someone uses a "But that's how it is in real life!" argument to apply to an outlook or a tone or some manner of constructed fictional events, I wince and my stomach flops.
Acceptable uses of the argument: If what happens in the fiction is directly inspired by a thing that happened in meatspace.
Every time someone uses a "But that's how it is in real life!" argument to apply to an outlook or a tone or some manner of constructed fictional events, I wince and my stomach flops.
Acceptable uses of the argument: If what happens in the fiction is directly inspired by a thing that happened in meatspace.
See I hate things like this. Because the world very much isn't that way, and I resent having my emotions manipulated just to make me feel bad.
You're assuming that all tragedy is manipulative or not in earnest. I am talking genuine sorrow and terror: Topor's The Tenant, Ligotti's "The Music of the Moon", The Machinist, Eraserhead. Stories that make uncomfortable, unsettling propositions.
If you don't enjoy those sorts of stories, that's fine, but it's a bit condescending to dismiss a viewpoint as insincere or immoral because it makes you uncomfortable to look at things that way or because you don't especially agree with it.
I suppose I should have specified that when I asked about 'for the purpose of horror' I meant horror for its own sake - works that aim to produce an emotional reaction, not to propose a new, bleak perspective on reality.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
All art is manipulative, anyway.
I don't like it when the metaphorical puppeteer shows that their hand is stuck up the puppet's butt. Or have all kinds of nonsensical miseries happen to the puppet without rhyme or reason, the logic being that the puppet is a puppet and isn't real so they can do whatever they want. Um. No? It's a character in a situation? And that's too much? Please put the knife down puppet of beloved cousin?
Or when I'm in a haunted house and some monster which is a guy in a suit pops up and it's covered in eyeballs and lacerations and then tries to feel my pocket for change. And then they kill the lights and drop nets on me.
You had your chances, to move me. But you overplayed your hand. The illusion is gone and you're not Jim Henson.
See I hate things like this. Because the world very much isn't that way, and I resent having my emotions manipulated just to make me feel bad.
You're assuming that all tragedy is manipulative or not in earnest. I am talking genuine sorrow and terror: Topor's The Tenant, Ligotti's "The Music of the Moon", The Machinist, Eraserhead. Stories that make uncomfortable, unsettling propositions.
If you don't enjoy those sorts of stories, that's fine, but it's a bit condescending to dismiss a viewpoint as insincere or immoral because it makes you uncomfortable to look at things that way or because you don't especially agree with it.
We do not seem to be talking about the same thing, so nevermind I guess.
I suppose I should have specified that when I asked about 'for the purpose of horror' I meant horror for its own sake - works that aim to produce an emotional reaction, not to propose a new, bleak perspective on reality.
I didn't mean to say that horror has to be all about turning reality on its head. I just meant that I feel like truly effective horror can't end truly well. Horror that ends in a conventionally happy way overall and has a distinct villain/hero dichotomy wherein the latter is victorious and the former vanquished is, to me, just another thriller or dark fantasy. Horror is tragic, and earnestly so. That's part of why it's scary.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
I like the horror that doesn't make me jerk out of my seat and scream.
I like the horror that just unsettles and makes you sit there and watch and you can't look away, because the terrible thing that's going on is just going so slow, you need to see it through. It's just wrong in a very muted way and that stays with you.
I believe I know what you mean though. The kind of story that doesn't provide its readers with a comfortable conclusion. Like The Turn of the Screw, or the best of Poe's stories. Am I on the right track here?
I like the horror that doesn't make me jerk out of my seat and scream.
I like the horror that just unsettles and makes you sit there and watch and you can't look away, because the terrible thing that's going on is just going so slow, you need to see it through. It's just wrong in a very muted way and that stays with you.
I like the horror that doesn't make me jerk out of my seat and scream.
I like the horror that just unsettles and makes you sit there and watch and you can't look away, because the terrible thing that's going on is just going so slow, you need to see it through. It's just wrong in a very muted way and that stays with you.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
The way some folks use "dark fantasy" makes me not like those folks.
Like for them the default setting for "fantasy" is rainbows and unicorns. And when you introduce like communism or consumerism or nightmare worlds or maybe some cannibalism and torture oh no! Now the magical fun time land is so dark. So dark you guys.
That's overcast at best. Dark fantasy has to be legit. Like too legit to quit. Gotta actually instill in the audience fear and terror and nail-biting and disgust.
EDIT: I'm glad I'm not alone in my horror preferences.
I like the horror that doesn't make me jerk out of my seat and scream.
I like the horror that just unsettles and makes you sit there and watch and you can't look away, because the terrible thing that's going on is just going so slow, you need to see it through. It's just wrong in a very muted way and that stays with you.
I believe I know what you mean though. The kind of story that doesn't provide its readers with a comfortable conclusion. Like The Turn of the Screw, or the best of Poe's stories. Am I on the right track here?
There is plenty of great dark fantasy - heck, I'm writing in the genre; I wouldn't if I didn't love it - but there's also some fairly meh dark fantasy masquerading as horror. Say the worst of Stephen King, who is a perfectly serviceable writer that happens to wildly miss tthe mark on a lot of his endings and resorts to the excessive far too often to diminishing returns.
But yes, the latter is precisely what I mean. Even if the protagonist gets out alive and lives a seemingly normal existence, on closer scrutiny nothing is the same. The horror does not end and cannot end.
@ kingCrackers: To me the 'dark' in 'dark fantasy' is kind of like a warning that 'this setting contains elements that are extremely gruesome or morbid'
The Lord of the Rings is not exactly Winnie the Pooh (no, Mr Moorcock, it isn't!) but nor is it likely to offend squeamish audiences
Whereas 'dark fantasy', to me, is more-or-less synonymous with supernatural horror; a story in that genre will aim to shock or disquiet the reader
Actually, the end of Have A Nice Life's "Defenestration Song" precisely nails what the end of a truly unsettling horror story should be like: Is this what it's like? Is this what it's going to be like? Or maybe The Cure's "Siamese Twins": Is it always like this?
The answer does not need to be said. You know it in your bones.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Section: Aw, gosh.
Sredni: Well sure, I'm just reacting to people who call Dragon Age a "dark fantasy". It doesn't have the right tone at all. Incidentally, what do you consider dark fantasy?
Comments
I don't think saying 'this looks bad, I don't wanna watch it' constitutes an expressed desire to partake in a critical discussion
nor even 'I watched this and I thought it sucked'
I would never go to a TGWG forum (I think Todd is on his network? I might be wrong) and talk about how I hate Todd. Spec Ops is a bit more fuzzy because talk about that could conceivably come up anywhere where video games are discussed, but I have my reasons for disliking that and those reasons don't require me to play the game.
Plus I find your opinions kind of intimidating, honestly, but that's a good thing.
I actually dislike Spec Ops: The Line, more specifically its moral, and have cited my reasons as to why many times. Todd belongs to a wider category of things I find distasteful.
I'm aware I can sometimes be abrasive on subjects like that, but I have also not brought either of them up any time recently.
You sound far too smart for me to dare disagree with you. :p
Because throughout this entire, now multi-page discussion, I have not learned anything about why you don't dislike John Green.
I did say you made a good point earlier...
By which I mean, why tumblr
What about when it's used for the purpose of horror?
I must admit, I quite enjoy superficial grimdarkness... I find things things that are actually, legitimately dark (e.g. Lehane's Gone Baby Gone) difficult to stomach.
I believe I know what you mean though. The kind of story that doesn't provide its readers with a comfortable conclusion. Like The Turn of the Screw, or the best of Poe's stories. Am I on the right track here?
The Lord of the Rings is not exactly Winnie the Pooh (no, Mr Moorcock, it isn't!) but nor is it likely to offend squeamish audiences
Whereas 'dark fantasy', to me, is more-or-less synonymous with supernatural horror; a story in that genre will aim to shock or disquiet the reader