Ugh. This statement is so offensive. The purpose of fiction is enjoyment, if you enjoyed it, it was good. It is inherently subjective, now you can say a book was 'good' because most readers who read it will have enjoyed themselves or not, or even further sub divide it by groups (sci-fi fans, mystery fans etc) but ultimately the value of a book is in weather it was enjoyed or not.Originally Posted by wiggin
I don't know. Though I get what you're saying, there is mileage to wig's statement.
My other half watches utter crap on tv sometimes - it's her switch-off from a very busy work-schedule, she wants to disengage her brain and crap tv is her way of doing it. Think the most awful of soap operas and badly-acted cheap dramas. Now she enjoys these, but she will readily admit that it is complete tripe. There are elements of subjectivity to what is 'crap', yes, but there are boundaries too. Things like quality of acting, quality of writing, quality of direction and production; these are much more objective.
Sooo, you're saying that people have simple needs for their entertainment, and can distinguish fact from fantasy, because your girlfriend does? Sorry but that doesn't wash. The women I know that watch soap operas or reality tv or crap tv aren't looking to switch-off from reality, as an escape; they're looking to validate their existing challenges. Even if it means petty things like manicured nails or certain hairstyles or waist size or ways of dressing, they can be convinced that a persona is more important than their person. These women will wear a girdle to their job interview, and this is why Spanx became a global phenomenon.
There is really no excuse for watching poorly written, poorly acted, and/or poorly directed television these days. There is SO much excellent television out there you could literally not watch it all - there isn't enough time. Rewind to 35 years ago and the exact opposite, in every way, was the rule. We live in a television Platinum Age.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
You missed the point. It's not to watch good television. It's to switch off. She will actively avoid 'good television' at these times because that requires mental investment, concentration, exactly the things she wants to switch off from after a hard day's work. Crap tv provides that switch off precisely because it is crap - it requires zero mental thought. Some people work out. Others go for a drink to unwind or find some other way to switch off the brain and relax after the stresses of a work day.
Agreed that this is currently an excellent time for TV. And when it's time for 'good tv' we normally sit together and watch something quality that we both enjoy, and we will both invest the mental energy said tv requires.
Not to belabor the point (or sound like a jerk) but I don't get why watching crap tv is your girl friend's switch off. If she's watching the most awful soap operas, those are serials that DO require some mental thought, just to keep up with the plot line and character changes. Even crappy reality tv shows operate on the serial concept (just ask the Kardashians).
My hunch is that she tells you that because it's easier than explaining how/why women use crap tv as a social device, something to talk about with co-workers or friends in the periphery of life that connects people. Rather like how men sometimes watch sports, just so they can banter about team X or the big play-offs or whatever around the water cooler, to feel part of the gang.
I'm asking why we *think* of tv (or movies) as entertainment or escapism, when there are so many other underlying cultural reasons that are neither.
I've been crazy busy but I wanted to give this thread a somewhat more detailed treatment than my rather offhand remarks above.
Hmm, perhaps this is an issue of definitions. To me a book that isn't 'good' isn't necessarily 'bad'. It just isn't good. There are a lot of books out there that are engaging and interesting and entertaining but still aren't good. I'm not saying that every book needs to be a critical masterpiece to qualify as 'good', but it does need to be more than merely entertaining.
Probably the best example I can think of is the Harry Potter series. I started reading them when I was still relatively young (early teens?) and I enjoyed the world Rowling created - I thought it was a fun idea with all sorts of clever gags. But even in the early books I was well aware that the books were written, well, poorly. The quality of the writing was at best mediocre, the characters were caricatures, the plotting was transparent. And that's okay - the books aren't meant for a critical adult eye, they're meant for kids. I still read them all, and enjoyed them, after a fashion. I wouldn't say they even reach the level of the best children's fantasy series (at the very least Susan Cooper is better, I'm sure there are more - does Earthsea count as a kids series?). But they're still entertaining. They just aren't good, and it drives me nuts when grown-ass adults are obsessed with the series.
Perhaps I define good as whether a book is the best version of itself. Or perhaps it just needs to be 'good enough' on every major metric with some areas of brilliance that push it above average. But I don't equate entertainment with quality - they can be synonymous, but don't need to be. I'm not the kind of person who is opposed to enjoying or praising popular things - I like Radiohead, goddammit! And I read far more genre fiction than 'literature', and don't feel remotely bad about it - some of the best books I've ever read have been genre fiction. But there's also a lot of garbage. Most of the garbage is intolerable to me and I refuse to consume it. Some of it is still entertaining, but it's the difference between junk food and a beautifully prepared steak: the junk food might be tasty, but it isn't good.
A book not being 'good' (in the way I describe above) doesn't mean it has no value. I personally think that there's a lot more to get out of fiction than pure entertainment, but even on that simple rubric, I enjoy a 'good' book far more than I enjoy a merely mediocre one. The latter might be fun, but I won't walk away with anything like the same satisfaction/utility I'd get with a good book.
I completely agree, Tim. The vast majority of my TV/movie watching is confined to half-watching while I'm washing dishes or folding laundry or whatever. I simply don't have the attention (or, at times, emotional reserves) to watch something really great. I'm seasons behind on The Walking Dead because each episode takes a lot out of me, and I have to really sit down and watch it, rather than seeing a rerun of Chuck (a guilty pleasure that is definitely not 'good').
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
That's fair. There are different genres sometimes you are in the mood to laugh and sometimes you want to see shit blow up and sometime you want to cry. What is 'good' at the moment may be different depending on your actual state.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote