Someone is trying to defend Stephen Bond to me in 2018

Life is hell

EVEN HE realized his blog was shit

You need to know about this

Comments

  • My dreams exceed my real life
    *screams*
  • My dreams exceed my real life
    What makes something an object of fandom? There are some works that attract obsessive fannish behaviour and some that don't -- and this seems to be independent of popularity. To take an example from LucasProduct, both Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars are hugely popular movies, but only the latter has developed a significant fan base. Why? My theory is that for something to attract fans, it must have an aspect of truly monumental badness about it.

    Raiders of the Lost Ark is a robust potboiler, tongue-in-cheek, very competently done. I think it's enjoyable, but even among those who don't, it's hard to see the film attracting actual derision. Boredom or irritation, probably, but nothing more. Star Wars, on the other hand.... From one perspective, it's an entertaining space opera, but from a slightly different perspective, an imperceptible twist of the glass, it's laughably awful. Utterly ridiculously bad. And it's this very badness that makes so many people take up arms in its defence.

    Once a work passes a certain basic all-round level of competence, it doesn't need the defence of fandom. It's impossible to imagine a fan of Animal Farm, the Well-Tempered Clavier, or the theory of gravity. Such works can defend themselves. But badness, especially badness of an obvious, monumental variety, inspires devotion. The quality of the work, in the face of such glaring shortcomings, becomes a matter of faith -- and faith is a much stronger bond than mere appreciation. It drives fans together, gives them strength against those who sneer. The sneers make their faith even stronger; the awfulness of the work reassures them of their belief. And so the fan groups of Tolkien, Star Trek, Spider-man, Japanese kiddie-cartoons etc. develop an almost cult-like character.

    I need to stress that I'm just talking about aspects of badness; the above works all have their many admirable qualities which attract people in the first place (though in the case of Anime I'd be hard-pressed to tell you what they were). And I shouldn't confine myself to 'geek' subcultures; fandom also afflicts the 'mainstream' and 'high art' worlds, and for the same reasons. Stanley Kubrick might well make anyone's pantheon of great directors, including mine, but unlike Welles, Huston and others, Kubrick has a definite fannish following. And this is because his post-2001 work openly flirts with quite spectacular direness. 2001 itself treads the finest of lines between the infinite and the infinitely bad. Wagner is perhaps the only 'classical' composer with a fan base, and this is because his operas, despite their many remarkable qualities, always teeter on the edge of being truly, staggeringly awful, especially in stage productions. Much the same goes for James Joyce, and Shakespeare.

    And the same again goes for religion, the ultimate expression of fandom. If Christianity, say, were just a list of moral precepts, it most probably wouldn't have any adherents -- just admirers. But add in nonsense like the resurrection and the Trinity, the creation and the apocalypse, the angels and the saints, and you get that monumental awfulness that millions will die for.
  • My dreams exceed my real life
    What makes something an object of fandom? There are some works that attract obsessive fannish behaviour and some that don't -- and this seems to be independent of popularity. To take an example from LucasProduct, both Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars are hugely popular movies, but only the latter has developed a significant fan base. Why? My theory is that for something to attract fans, it must have an aspect of truly monumental badness about it.

    Raiders of the Lost Ark is a robust potboiler, tongue-in-cheek, very competently done. I think it's enjoyable, but even among those who don't, it's hard to see the film attracting actual derision. Boredom or irritation, probably, but nothing more. Star Wars, on the other hand.... From one perspective, it's an entertaining space opera, but from a slightly different perspective, an imperceptible twist of the glass, it's laughably awful. Utterly ridiculously bad. And it's this very badness that makes so many people take up arms in its defence.

    Once a work passes a certain basic all-round level of competence, it doesn't need the defence of fandom. It's impossible to imagine a fan of Animal Farm, the Well-Tempered Clavier, or the theory of gravity. Such works can defend themselves. But badness, especially badness of an obvious, monumental variety, inspires devotion. The quality of the work, in the face of such glaring shortcomings, becomes a matter of faith -- and faith is a much stronger bond than mere appreciation. It drives fans together, gives them strength against those who sneer. The sneers make their faith even stronger; the awfulness of the work reassures them of their belief. And so the fan groups of Tolkien, Star Trek, Spider-man, Japanese kiddie-cartoons etc. develop an almost cult-like character.

    I need to stress that I'm just talking about aspects of badness; the above works all have their many admirable qualities which attract people in the first place (though in the case of Anime I'd be hard-pressed to tell you what they were). And I shouldn't confine myself to 'geek' subcultures; fandom also afflicts the 'mainstream' and 'high art' worlds, and for the same reasons. Stanley Kubrick might well make anyone's pantheon of great directors, including mine, but unlike Welles, Huston and others, Kubrick has a definite fannish following. And this is because his post-2001 work openly flirts with quite spectacular direness. 2001 itself treads the finest of lines between the infinite and the infinitely bad. Wagner is perhaps the only 'classical' composer with a fan base, and this is because his operas, despite their many remarkable qualities, always teeter on the edge of being truly, staggeringly awful, especially in stage productions. Much the same goes for James Joyce, and Shakespeare.

    And the same again goes for religion, the ultimate expression of fandom. If Christianity, say, were just a list of moral precepts, it most probably wouldn't have any adherents -- just admirers. But add in nonsense like the resurrection and the Trinity, the creation and the apocalypse, the angels and the saints, and you get that monumental awfulness that millions will die for.
  • My dreams exceed my real life
    What makes something an object of fandom? There are some works that attract obsessive fannish behaviour and some that don't -- and this seems to be independent of popularity. To take an example from LucasProduct, both Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars are hugely popular movies, but only the latter has developed a significant fan base. Why? My theory is that for something to attract fans, it must have an aspect of truly monumental badness about it.

    Raiders of the Lost Ark is a robust potboiler, tongue-in-cheek, very competently done. I think it's enjoyable, but even among those who don't, it's hard to see the film attracting actual derision. Boredom or irritation, probably, but nothing more. Star Wars, on the other hand.... From one perspective, it's an entertaining space opera, but from a slightly different perspective, an imperceptible twist of the glass, it's laughably awful. Utterly ridiculously bad. And it's this very badness that makes so many people take up arms in its defence.

    Once a work passes a certain basic all-round level of competence, it doesn't need the defence of fandom. It's impossible to imagine a fan of Animal Farm, the Well-Tempered Clavier, or the theory of gravity. Such works can defend themselves. But badness, especially badness of an obvious, monumental variety, inspires devotion. The quality of the work, in the face of such glaring shortcomings, becomes a matter of faith -- and faith is a much stronger bond than mere appreciation. It drives fans together, gives them strength against those who sneer. The sneers make their faith even stronger; the awfulness of the work reassures them of their belief. And so the fan groups of Tolkien, Star Trek, Spider-man, Japanese kiddie-cartoons etc. develop an almost cult-like character.

    I need to stress that I'm just talking about aspects of badness; the above works all have their many admirable qualities which attract people in the first place (though in the case of Anime I'd be hard-pressed to tell you what they were). And I shouldn't confine myself to 'geek' subcultures; fandom also afflicts the 'mainstream' and 'high art' worlds, and for the same reasons. Stanley Kubrick might well make anyone's pantheon of great directors, including mine, but unlike Welles, Huston and others, Kubrick has a definite fannish following. And this is because his post-2001 work openly flirts with quite spectacular direness. 2001 itself treads the finest of lines between the infinite and the infinitely bad. Wagner is perhaps the only 'classical' composer with a fan base, and this is because his operas, despite their many remarkable qualities, always teeter on the edge of being truly, staggeringly awful, especially in stage productions. Much the same goes for James Joyce, and Shakespeare.

    And the same again goes for religion, the ultimate expression of fandom. If Christianity, say, were just a list of moral precepts, it most probably wouldn't have any adherents -- just admirers. But add in nonsense like the resurrection and the Trinity, the creation and the apocalypse, the angels and the saints, and you get that monumental awfulness that millions will die for.
  • My dreams exceed my real life
    What makes something an object of fandom? There are some works that attract obsessive fannish behaviour and some that don't -- and this seems to be independent of popularity. To take an example from LucasProduct, both Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars are hugely popular movies, but only the latter has developed a significant fan base. Why? My theory is that for something to attract fans, it must have an aspect of truly monumental badness about it.

    Raiders of the Lost Ark is a robust potboiler, tongue-in-cheek, very competently done. I think it's enjoyable, but even among those who don't, it's hard to see the film attracting actual derision. Boredom or irritation, probably, but nothing more. Star Wars, on the other hand.... From one perspective, it's an entertaining space opera, but from a slightly different perspective, an imperceptible twist of the glass, it's laughably awful. Utterly ridiculously bad. And it's this very badness that makes so many people take up arms in its defence.

    Once a work passes a certain basic all-round level of competence, it doesn't need the defence of fandom. It's impossible to imagine a fan of Animal Farm, the Well-Tempered Clavier, or the theory of gravity. Such works can defend themselves. But badness, especially badness of an obvious, monumental variety, inspires devotion. The quality of the work, in the face of such glaring shortcomings, becomes a matter of faith -- and faith is a much stronger bond than mere appreciation. It drives fans together, gives them strength against those who sneer. The sneers make their faith even stronger; the awfulness of the work reassures them of their belief. And so the fan groups of Tolkien, Star Trek, Spider-man, Japanese kiddie-cartoons etc. develop an almost cult-like character.

    I need to stress that I'm just talking about aspects of badness; the above works all have their many admirable qualities which attract people in the first place (though in the case of Anime I'd be hard-pressed to tell you what they were). And I shouldn't confine myself to 'geek' subcultures; fandom also afflicts the 'mainstream' and 'high art' worlds, and for the same reasons. Stanley Kubrick might well make anyone's pantheon of great directors, including mine, but unlike Welles, Huston and others, Kubrick has a definite fannish following. And this is because his post-2001 work openly flirts with quite spectacular direness. 2001 itself treads the finest of lines between the infinite and the infinitely bad. Wagner is perhaps the only 'classical' composer with a fan base, and this is because his operas, despite their many remarkable qualities, always teeter on the edge of being truly, staggeringly awful, especially in stage productions. Much the same goes for James Joyce, and Shakespeare.

    And the same again goes for religion, the ultimate expression of fandom. If Christianity, say, were just a list of moral precepts, it most probably wouldn't have any adherents -- just admirers. But add in nonsense like the resurrection and the Trinity, the creation and the apocalypse, the angels and the saints, and you get that monumental awfulness that millions will die for.
  • My dreams exceed my real life
    What makes something an object of fandom? There are some works that attract obsessive fannish behaviour and some that don't -- and this seems to be independent of popularity. To take an example from LucasProduct, both Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars are hugely popular movies, but only the latter has developed a significant fan base. Why? My theory is that for something to attract fans, it must have an aspect of truly monumental badness about it.

    Raiders of the Lost Ark is a robust potboiler, tongue-in-cheek, very competently done. I think it's enjoyable, but even among those who don't, it's hard to see the film attracting actual derision. Boredom or irritation, probably, but nothing more. Star Wars, on the other hand.... From one perspective, it's an entertaining space opera, but from a slightly different perspective, an imperceptible twist of the glass, it's laughably awful. Utterly ridiculously bad. And it's this very badness that makes so many people take up arms in its defence.

    Once a work passes a certain basic all-round level of competence, it doesn't need the defence of fandom. It's impossible to imagine a fan of Animal Farm, the Well-Tempered Clavier, or the theory of gravity. Such works can defend themselves. But badness, especially badness of an obvious, monumental variety, inspires devotion. The quality of the work, in the face of such glaring shortcomings, becomes a matter of faith -- and faith is a much stronger bond than mere appreciation. It drives fans together, gives them strength against those who sneer. The sneers make their faith even stronger; the awfulness of the work reassures them of their belief. And so the fan groups of Tolkien, Star Trek, Spider-man, Japanese kiddie-cartoons etc. develop an almost cult-like character.

    I need to stress that I'm just talking about aspects of badness; the above works all have their many admirable qualities which attract people in the first place (though in the case of Anime I'd be hard-pressed to tell you what they were). And I shouldn't confine myself to 'geek' subcultures; fandom also afflicts the 'mainstream' and 'high art' worlds, and for the same reasons. Stanley Kubrick might well make anyone's pantheon of great directors, including mine, but unlike Welles, Huston and others, Kubrick has a definite fannish following. And this is because his post-2001 work openly flirts with quite spectacular direness. 2001 itself treads the finest of lines between the infinite and the infinitely bad. Wagner is perhaps the only 'classical' composer with a fan base, and this is because his operas, despite their many remarkable qualities, always teeter on the edge of being truly, staggeringly awful, especially in stage productions. Much the same goes for James Joyce, and Shakespeare.

    And the same again goes for religion, the ultimate expression of fandom. If Christianity, say, were just a list of moral precepts, it most probably wouldn't have any adherents -- just admirers. But add in nonsense like the resurrection and the Trinity, the creation and the apocalypse, the angels and the saints, and you get that monumental awfulness that millions will die for.
  • My dreams exceed my real life
    What makes something an object of fandom? There are some works that attract obsessive fannish behaviour and some that don't -- and this seems to be independent of popularity. To take an example from LucasProduct, both Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars are hugely popular movies, but only the latter has developed a significant fan base. Why? My theory is that for something to attract fans, it must have an aspect of truly monumental badness about it.

    Raiders of the Lost Ark is a robust potboiler, tongue-in-cheek, very competently done. I think it's enjoyable, but even among those who don't, it's hard to see the film attracting actual derision. Boredom or irritation, probably, but nothing more. Star Wars, on the other hand.... From one perspective, it's an entertaining space opera, but from a slightly different perspective, an imperceptible twist of the glass, it's laughably awful. Utterly ridiculously bad. And it's this very badness that makes so many people take up arms in its defence.

    Once a work passes a certain basic all-round level of competence, it doesn't need the defence of fandom. It's impossible to imagine a fan of Animal Farm, the Well-Tempered Clavier, or the theory of gravity. Such works can defend themselves. But badness, especially badness of an obvious, monumental variety, inspires devotion. The quality of the work, in the face of such glaring shortcomings, becomes a matter of faith -- and faith is a much stronger bond than mere appreciation. It drives fans together, gives them strength against those who sneer. The sneers make their faith even stronger; the awfulness of the work reassures them of their belief. And so the fan groups of Tolkien, Star Trek, Spider-man, Japanese kiddie-cartoons etc. develop an almost cult-like character.

    I need to stress that I'm just talking about aspects of badness; the above works all have their many admirable qualities which attract people in the first place (though in the case of Anime I'd be hard-pressed to tell you what they were). And I shouldn't confine myself to 'geek' subcultures; fandom also afflicts the 'mainstream' and 'high art' worlds, and for the same reasons. Stanley Kubrick might well make anyone's pantheon of great directors, including mine, but unlike Welles, Huston and others, Kubrick has a definite fannish following. And this is because his post-2001 work openly flirts with quite spectacular direness. 2001 itself treads the finest of lines between the infinite and the infinitely bad. Wagner is perhaps the only 'classical' composer with a fan base, and this is because his operas, despite their many remarkable qualities, always teeter on the edge of being truly, staggeringly awful, especially in stage productions. Much the same goes for James Joyce, and Shakespeare.

    And the same again goes for religion, the ultimate expression of fandom. If Christianity, say, were just a list of moral precepts, it most probably wouldn't have any adherents -- just admirers. But add in nonsense like the resurrection and the Trinity, the creation and the apocalypse, the angels and the saints, and you get that monumental awfulness that millions will die for.
  • My dreams exceed my real life
    If Stephen Bond makes a comeback I will commit seppukku
  • I can all but hear the chimes
    They are long and loud and slow
    I can feel through the incorrigible bonds of empathy the smugness that went into the forging of these words coursing through my veins, shining out of my eyes, transforming them into baleful beacons of unspeakable lofty pretention
  • Sup bitches, witches, Haters, and trolls.
    Fandom of the theory of gravity is called Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • I can all but hear the chimes
    They are long and loud and slow
    I can seriously picture myself writing this whole thing in my head it's real good
  • My dreams exceed my real life
    Smuglords of the worlod, there is one smug you cannot beat, and that is the smug inside
  • IN THIS WORLD IT'S MILK OR BE MILKED
    I am a fan of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

    DENIED.
  • My dreams exceed my real life
    It kinda gets me that he couldn't think of more than two all-around competent good pieces of art so he had to come in with a scientific theorem
  • kill living beings
    "It's impossible to imagine a fan of the theory of gravity" isn't even true

    this is... this is a bad post right here all around
  • Sup bitches, witches, Haters, and trolls.
    also a fan of the Well-Tempered Clavier is Douglas Hofstadter, and of Animal Farm is...I'm actually not sure which political subgroup on Twitter counts there, but one of them
  • IN THIS WORLD IT'S MILK OR BE MILKED
    Do these things have fandoms, though? Like, as in, idiots who buy all the merch and dress up as the characters and have posters of the theory of gravity covering their walls
  • kill living beings
    they have long and largely pointless arguments about miniutiae and that's enough for me
  • Sup bitches, witches, Haters, and trolls.

    Do these things have fandoms, though? Like, as in, idiots who buy all the merch and dress up as the characters and have posters of the theory of gravity covering their walls

    have you seen the i fucking love science facebook board
  • imagei will watch the heck outta this pumpkin patch
    i feel like the stuff this guy identifies as 'bad' is, like, all the fun parts?

    like he would turn Christianity into a list of moral rules, as though the resurrection and the angels and so on aren't precisely what makes it interesting
  • imagei will watch the heck outta this pumpkin patch
    likewise his selection of 'good' art strikes me as a very careful and conservative selection

    art is good, apparently, if there's a relatively low chance anyone is going to laugh about it, or even hold much of an opinion about it
  • And the same again goes for religion, the ultimate expression of fandom.
    ah yes

    the jesus fandom
  • IN THIS WORLD IT'S MILK OR BE MILKED
    more like the Jesus fan dumb right?
    Calica said:

    Do these things have fandoms, though? Like, as in, idiots who buy all the merch and dress up as the characters and have posters of the theory of gravity covering their walls

    have you seen the i fucking love science facebook board
    admittedly I have not
  • For once, or maybe twice, I was in my prime.
    Jane said:

    And the same again goes for religion, the ultimate expression of fandom.
    ah yes

    the jesus fandom
    Honestly, I've felt before like certain fandoms are basically modern religions. Or at least, a lot of people get the same thing from fandoms that we all used to get from religion, both the good and the bad. See: the two main meanings of the word "canon".
Sign In or Register to comment.