The following is an extenuation of some ramblings between myself and Chris Pfeiler from a thread named "To all the people criticizing the Simpsons". I felt the need to set a few things straight. Sorry about having waited so long to respond, but, I had too much work to do. And, usually I read and post in this news group just to relieve some of the tension on my job. WARNING! This post is too dry and long to be fun. But, since Chris went through the trouble of a long post primarily directed toward me, I felt obliged to respond to him (her?).
I salute anyone with the stamina to read the entire post!
Forgive me for transcribing the post. I am still a primitive at the computer, and haven't learned how to retrieve an old, lost post. ( I printed it out, but also failed to save it! D'oh!!!) And, in case anyone is wondering, despite Linguo's protestations (and that of my spell and grammar check), I left Chris' post in its entirety - as written. (Barring a couple of typos.) Well, here we go!
Chris chose to excerpt the following from my earlier November post.
......[if] the negative posters were positive, they might actually do something positive with their lives. In the real world, they have little, or no, talent and little, if any, control over their own lives. They also see a higher purpose for the "Simpsons", and if the writing is not up to their standards, they become pissy.
"(and some more of his usual stuff)"
Apparently, Chris was offended by this passage which came toward the end of my original post. On my part, there was also a specific reason for writing this. Keep this in mind, since it figures later on.
"Just some words especially to Bob. I don't want to attack you in any way, I just want to express now some of my personal thoughts and observations on your style. That thread and your comments to the trite "stop watching it" stuff seems to be the right place and I'm in the mood for some rambling."
When are you NOT in the mood for rambling?
"The following stuff has little to do with the thread itself, it's more an observation on your style in general. Sorry....."
You said that already! And, if you were sorry, you would've stopped here.
"....Feel free to correct me."
There will be much need for that!
"Your main problem, Bob, is IMO not with people who have a positive or negative opinion about the show or express their opinion here, your main problem is with people who take the show more seriously than you. A serious opinion about a cartoon needs a somehow idealistic point of view and that doesn't fit into your more or less cynical point of view."
Wow! You almost got what I've said dozens of times in numerous posts. But, Chris, you missed on thinking I am incapable of taking anything seriously, or that I have not taken the few serious parts of the "Simpsons" seriously. Plus, idealism and cynicism has nothing to do with anything. I don't put down idealism. I put down pomposity. Get that straight! More on this later.
"You often say you have no problem with serious opinions but just with self-important people. Good point, but appearing "self important" (to many) is often an aspect of taking something more serious than others...."
You say I have a good point, then refute it. A wee confused, are we?
"....It's no real arrogance or self-importance but often just a little more seriousness where other people only laugh."
Do you even realize how arrogant that statement sounds?
"I think you love to put people into categories. You start reading a post and already after the first or second line you put the writer (and his arguments as well) into one of your personal categories like"whiny an self-important nerd" or "wannabe critic who uses big words to appear smart" etc. and thus you don't care much about the critical opinions expressed in the post."
I am impressed with your amazing ability to divine the thought processes of another human being. Seriously, what gives you the right to accuse me of not caring about someone else's opinion when you are committing the same offense? How do you know what I care about?
And, as far as categorizing... We all do it. You do it, whether you admit to it or not! People can be categorized. Why do you think demographics are used by advertisers? Besides, sometimes I do it as a joke. (I thought you were so good at spotting and then criticizing humor. I guess if you can't see it, it doesn't exist.) And, sometimes I purposely bait someone in order to skew an argument to my direction. This was obviously too subtle for you to pick up. More on this later.
"You just search for lines and words (like words that deal with a cartoon seriously) that help to back up your belief that critical writer belongs to one of your categories and - of course - you always find them."
This passage is really amazing! You accuse me of only picking out certain lines, yet you started this whole post by excerpting one small passage from my original post. Don't you think that renders your point a little, eh.....stupid? Everybody responds to that which is of interest to them! Use a little common sense, and be a bit more consistent.
"That behavior is IMO (<= the bad word :-}) somehow rude......."
I have to interrupt you here to try to clarify something you refuse to see. "IMO" is not a bad "word" (Word? Isn't that an acronym?) . My objection is the use of IMO or IMHO by a person who is claiming to state opinion when they actually mean to aver what they are saying should be taken as fact! I thought this was pretty apparent. Is there any particular reason you refuse to see my point on this matter?
"....It often seems to me as if you don't accept that people have the right to have own opinions and express them, you just accept that people have the right to belong to your universal categories of human behavior."
I think I must be getting to you, because you just contradicted yourself. Didn't you write that I seem to have no problem with people expressing opinions? If you've actually bothered to read my previous posts, you'll see that I couldn't care less if people agree with me. I just like pulling off the masks that people wear. I put down hypocrites and pedantic poops. It's my hobby, and I'm good at it.
"Furthermore, you often complain about self-important people - like people who think they are really smart enough to criticize professional writers - ......"
And, of course, you are one of those smart people, right? You're touchy on this subject, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
".......but all the time you seem to put yourself into a position where you can judge into what categories people belong (by age, by style of writing, by opinion etc.) and that's IMO not right....."
You "categorize" people as not being serious enough or just wanting to laugh. Seems to be a judgement, too! BTW, I've never judged anyone on style of writing, just on what they've said.
"....People are much more than categories and their personal opinions are often deeper and more complex and less stereotypical than you seem to think."
As I've stated, one can categorize people, or more precisely make generalities. And, personal opinions are seldom deep. They are the results of our personal likes and dislikes. We rarely obsess enough about our average thoughts to be deep. There's an old saying - Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and most of them stink! And that's my opinion.
"Opinions may fit into your thinking if they are expressed in a short post but they may also be quite different from your category thinking, if you would talk to people personally and in detail (which you don't like, as talking about a cartoon show in serious details would appear to you as waste of time, wouldn't it?)"
This is another interesting passage! You seem to be saying I shouldn't make my opinions on a post without talking, in detail, with the person I'm posting against. Yet your entire post is filled with your impressions on me! Have you talked to me in detail? You've judged me as not taking things seriously solely based on my opinion that some people have read more into the "Simpsons" than is really there (or that they are incapable of seeing their own foibles). Had you visited my site, as I had invited all to do? Have you read my stuff? Have you examined my art? Then, by your own advice, you haven't the right to comment on me. But that's apparently not stopping you. Double standard.
"You say you don't like people who consider their opinion as universal fact (while you seem to think that your category thinking is fact) but you also say you don't like people who use IMO or IMHO, because you think they just hide behind all those words and consider their opinion nonetheless as the one and only valid truth. Don't you think that's at least a little contradictive?"
No! First off, I have objection to the use of IMO or IMHO by only a few people in this NG. (You seem to take this a wee too personally. I wonder why?) Second of all, this idea that I use "category thinking" is something you came up with. BTW, I believe you mean "categorical thinking" or "categorization".
Now, read the next sentence slowly, Chris! These are my personal observations based on my experiences! Can you get that through your head? One sign of intelligence is to be able to look beyond one's own opinion, learn new information and reject ideas that have been disproved.
FYI. it's actually part of my job to be able to cut through a person's bullshit and get to the heart of the matter. And, it's been my experience that self-important people like to ramble on and on, as if they know more than everyone else. This may not be true in your case. But then again, I'm a pretty good judge of character. It's one of the things that makes me good at my job.
"To come back to something you said in the quote above about people who don't know anything about art and writing and whatever and who think they are "kewl" enough to criticize professionals in some strange way. Then your point is justified. But is it a universal fact?"
What!? Your point about my point is confusing! First off, when have I ever used the term "kewl"? Second off, you are unaware of the fact that I do not believe in universal truths. What we (individually) believe to be true is merely our acceptance of an idea or opinion that jives with what we like at any given time.
But I have a feeling we are about to hit upon the real reason you wrote this post.
"I have written 12 Simpson fanscripts in German in the meantime (just as a hobby) and many people - even some who usually don't like my critical style - said that all scripts are good work and often even good enough to rival the professional writers. I don't say that to brag but to point out that people may have much more talent in their life than you think and know about, so it's IMO again wrong to put all of them into one "little/no talent and life" category.
A German humorist!? Well, I guess there's a first time for everything! Sorry, but I can't resist a straight line.
Not having read your fanscripts I cannot comment on if you have any comedic talent, or writing talent in general. And conveniently, you do not make these scripts available for comment.
(I've had similar discussions with a poster named Dana. I disagreed with him, but he did have the guts to make the scripts available for comment, which made for some good arguing. I give him credit for that! He didn't hide behind the anonymity of the internet, where one can pretest to be anything. Which is why I also put my work on the web.)
On the other hand, having read your critiques I can see you are well educated and intelligent. But, I have a problem believing you have any wit or humor, despite your use of " :-) ". Humor pops through even the most serious of writings. Now, although I don't questioned your intelligence, here's something that puts your critical eye into question. One aspect of my style ( which you seem to think you understand) is to be overly confrontational. This puts my opponents on the defense, and often unnerves them. Being unnerved, there is a tendency for their true natures and ideas to come out. (Did your discerning eye pick up on this?) And, I suspect that you were doing the same thing by inferring that I wasn't bright enough to look at the Simpsons critically. You obviously realize that I am a lot "deeper" and intelligent than you portray me, here. Because if you don't believe that, then you're just trying to show off at the expense of someone you consider inferior.... which would be rather rude, indeed!
My advice is to ignore all the negative posts, and keep loving the "Simpsons" for what it is...a fucking cartoon show meant to entertain, not to enlighten.
"First of all, the trite "it's just a fucking cartoon" line is below your style."
First of all, the "fucking cartoon" line has become trite due to some of the OCD-ridden posters who are constantly whining of the show's decline. You are also, once again, proving that you don't know my style! Take some of your own advice and get to know my style of writing before making such bold statements! Besides, this piece of advice was directed to the new people in this NG who were put off by all the negativity, and who had expressed the desire to leave us.
"Second, I guess you use the term "enlighten" intentionally to point out how overdone and even weird some people talk about a cartoon show...."
Bingo! You win a cookie! But as we continue, you lose it.
"....Actually, I would prefer the term thought provocation. You can't get enlightenment from a good TV show but it can provoke thoughts and the Simpsons was always the very best show that could provoke thoughts and deeper questions in the past."
Disagreement over meaning and terms seems to be at the heart of all our arguments. And, as the second sentence is just your opinion, I don't feel the need to comment.
"I can watch episodes like "Bart The General" or "Itchy & Scratchy & Marge" and I can get thought provocation from them and discuss them with other people (open-minded people, not just self-important weirdos as you prefer to see some of them)....."
Let me interrupt, again. First, it is apparent that you have your own categories for people. Second, stop trying to divine my thoughts, and comment only on what I've actually said.
FYI, in my experience, most self-important people are quite intelligent and straight-laced. And some even consider themselves to be open-minded. Hmm!?
Back to your post.
"The episode is just the start, most classic episodes have the potential to lead to discussion topics the writers had never thought about....."
All episodes have the "potential" for discussion. For that matter, a single TV commercial would have that potential! Whether any discussion has any validity is another matter. Didn't you learn this in your writing and literature (or film-making) classes? Also, how do you know what topics the writers thought about, discussed or left out. It is the height of arrogance to presume that you would know. But then again, you have the power to read minds!
Just another observation (hence, personal opinion)! You seem have a need to dissect things in order to prove your academic superiority. Don't worry - Mommy and Daddy didn't waste their money on your education.
".....Classic episodes were a very open concept, open for everything people wanted to see and discuss. Can I get any real thought provocation from recent episodes and their closed and empty sitcom concept?"
Apparently not! You'd never be able to have an open discussion of the newer shows with your closed-mindedness and prejudice favoring the "classics".
"A lot of people didn't watch the Simpsons to be enlightened in some overdone way, they watched it to see a show that was more than just a fucking cartoon. I could start now again with cartoon conformism etc. but I guess you wouldn't care."
With the tools one learned in writing classes, etc. one can read into anything what one wishes to see. That doesn't mean someone else using the same tools and with the same intelligence level will see the same episode in the same fashion. Why? Because we still bring along our own experiences, opinions and prejudices. So given that - no - I couldn't care less about cartoon conformism since it would not enhance this discussion.
"My own advice is quite different to yours - viewers should try to see more in The Simpsons than just another cartoon for entertainment. It's possible even with recent episodes but to a much lesser degree."
Why "should" viewers do that? What is your obsession with the "Simpsons" as some great art form that has fallen from it's pedestal? And, why can't you admit that not only are you're trying to find enlightenment from this show, your are trying to enlighten the rest of us? Hey, maybe you can start a new news group - alt.tvsimpsonsincessantwhining. Ya know, I don't care that people have an obsession with the "Simpsons". Just tell me why someone would consistently bitch about the "Simpsons", and insist that they know more writing and humor than the staff or all the other viewers. And, why do you feel the need for discussion? You end most of your posts with "any comments", even though it's a given that (in a NG) one may respond to any post. Turn your critical eye to your own motives.
Lastly, you've excerpted one more passage.
I respond only to clever attacks. The others are a waste of my time. "Then it is interesting to see whether you'll reply now :-). Well, my post was no attack but just a personal observation. Maybe it was nevertheless a waste of your and my time."
Chris"
Curious that you chose to close with this excerpt. You started out claiming not to want to attack me, and ended with the same assertion so I hope this wasn't your true purpose. Because if it was, it was a weak attempt, indeed.
You claim you didn't want to attack me, but you did made false observations about my writings. So I feel that I needed to defend myself. Of course, if this was a ploy, it will not work again. Fabricating any more falsehoods intended to lure me into further discussion would be pointless. You said that I should get to know people before making any comments. FYI, I've read some of your stuff. Unfortunately, I noticed a pattern of repetition, so I believe you had preconceived notions of episodes before you had written the reviews.
Let me end with this.
Earlier you talked about how you've written scripts that people found to be good. You said you didn't mean to brag, but merely to point out your talent. In my job, I've met hundreds of "artists" who believed themselves to be possessed of talent. In other words, they were bragging. Most have fallen by the wayside. Few have had any modicum of success. And so far , only a small handful are making a living as professionals. But the big difference between all those people and yourself is that they had the balls to actually test their talent against the real world.
As far as this having been a waste of time...of course it was. We're like dog people and cat people. We could each use facts and statistics to back up our opinions. But ultimately, our choice of pets is our own personal opinion. And, it would be senseless to try to change the other's opinion. So, if writing ad nauseum on the fall of the "Simpsons" makes you feel important, have fun. Just know that you are not better than the rest of us because we see things differently from you; that we might enjoy a good joke. Or, see brilliance where you are unwilling, since it doesn't jive with your ideas.
BTW, if you feel compelled to respond, please check your grammar, etc. You gave Linguo a nervous breakdown with this post.
Your pal,
- Bob