Chris

Idle Thumbs 152: Piercing the Fourth Dimension

Recommended Posts

Is it just me, or is something weird going on in this thread? There's a bunch of people showing up with brand new (or close to it) accounts and pretty obviously causing a deliberate fuss.

 

I don't think it's someone sock-puppeting or hot-linking, if that's what you're saying. Almost everyone involved has been around for months and posted good stuff in unrelated threads. The last thing I'd want to do is discount the opinion of someone with whom I disagree because they're not as active on a forum as I am. I'm more inclined to say that the split between regulars and newbies is happenstance here, at worst a miscommunication of forum culture and tone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is one factor that is the inherent responsibility of the creator or audience by default. In general I think it's the creator's job to be honest, the audience's job to be thoughtful, and the job of responsible critics to evaluate works in a humane and holistic way. Those things are all very complicated though and I don't think there's any way to just slam all that responsibility into one group or requirement.

 

I still have a frustratingly hard time agreeing to a perspective wherein someone can create a work, people view and discuss the work and find meaning or consensus in it, and then the creator can come in and say "Nope. You're wrong, you don't get it."

 

I do see a perspective where the creator could say "oh, that wasn't my INTENT", which becomes a meaningful part of a discussion. Once a creator's work is in the wild her interpretation ceases to be the driving point of discussion. Perhaps that's wrapped up in your mention of the creator being honest and we are agreeing. I think someone telling all the other people they're wrong about a commonly agreed view of their work is not being honest about the work they've done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prior to this thread (and its counterpart on Something Awful), I wasn't aware of the crummy, dismissive shorthand 'social justice warrior.' The reactionary attitude behind that is disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's someone sock-puppeting or hot-linking, if that's what you're saying. Almost everyone involved has been around for months and posted good stuff in unrelated threads. The last thing I'd want to do is discount the opinion of someone with whom I disagree because they're not as active on a forum as I am. I'm more inclined to say that the split between regulars and newbies is happenstance here, at worst a miscommunication of forum culture and tone.

Well, aperson showed up at least once. Video Games Are Childish was banned and then showed up again (and probably banned again?).

 

I'm not convinced they'll stay hidden forever, but either way, it's already contributed to an ugly ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, on reading my last post again this morning, it was really flippant and not helpful or constructive at all. This is a topic that can get me riled up pretty quickly. Apologies.

 

video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A bunch of interesting things about Gravity.
 

 

I want to respond to this, but I perhaps think that this would take the thread in a weird direction, so perhaps I may dig up some sort of thread dealing with Gravity in another forum and discuss things there. Hopefully you can find me there! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once a creator's work is in the wild her interpretation ceases to be the driving point of discussion. Perhaps that's wrapped up in your mention of the creator being honest and we are agreeing. I think someone telling all the other people they're wrong about a commonly agreed view of their work is not being honest about the work they've done.

 

I think a creator intent is hugely important, even after a work is completed. To suggest otherwise gives too much power to the audience. I do agree that there is a balance between the creator being honest and the audience thoughtful examining that creation, but part of being a thoughtful audience is to not completely divorce a creator from their work. It strikes me as a dishonest way to approach writing or anything.

 

If an audience fails to understand the point of a work that can be because of a failure in the creator, the audience, or both. It is frustrating to read people like the Far Cry 3 creator disparaging their audience for their failure to "get the point," but sometimes I really do believe that the audience is at fault. With satirical output like South Park or the Colbert Report, the blame for not getting the joke more often falls on the audience, for failing to honestly consider the creator's intent and letting their own interpretation dominate all other considerations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Colbert case is interesting. If the joke had been "The Fabulouth Foundation for Friendship towards Faggots or Whatever", would we be talking about intent and context? As I understand it, half the reason for the outrage is that there are Asian Americans who are tired of being considered the "safe" group to make fun of. 
 
Intent! It's Fucking Magic!
 
In certain lights, I can see where the author of this article is coming from, in others it looks like it was written as a straw-man caricature of a SJW by someone on /r/RedPill. 
 
Does expecting an audience to take the intent of the author into consideration when they've been offended constitute enablement of oppression and/or victim blaming? Saying that someone's hurt feelings are ridiculous or suspect sounds a lot like a tone argument. 
 
I honestly don't know. You guys are way better at this than I am. 
 
Edit: 'Banzo Bag :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:  :tup:

 

Edit Edit: I hope this isn't read as a "please teach me" derail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit Edit: I hope this isn't read as a "please teach me" derail. 

 

Just don't keep repeating that you don't understand after several people have replied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or is something weird going on in this thread? There's a bunch of people showing up with brand new (or close to it) accounts and pretty obviously causing a deliberate fuss.

Are they causing a fuss, or are they sharing an opinion that then causes a fuss when other posters lay into them?

WackyForeigner made a great post IMO. It's not insulting, it's well stated. SgtWhistlebotom immediately responded by making the conversation personal - accusing that poster of sounding like a high school student, not posting in good faith, etc. So who is responsible for the fuss in that case?

I think it's worth comparing TerriSchiavosGhost's response to that of SgtWhistlebotom. The latter is an attempt at escalation. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them some sort of mortal enemy, and treating them that way will cause a fuss even if that wasn't their intention. WackyForeigner made some good points but what TerriSchiavosGhost said also rings true in parts to me - in particular people people up the language of South Park uncritically. Aren't those kinds of discussions more interesting than people all telling each other how much they agree, or trying to pick fights then bemoaning the outbreak of fights?

I assume listeners of Idle Thumbs are at least somewhat diverse. If someone can't handle that without it becoming a fuss that's on them. Instead of assuming that someone you disagree with is a troll or trying to cause a deliberate fuss consider being more charitable in your interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WackyForeigner made a great post IMO. It's not insulting, it's well stated. SgtWhistlebotom immediately responded by making the conversation personal - accusing that poster of sounding like a high school student, not posting in good faith, etc. So who is responsible for the fuss in that case?

 

Know what? You're half right on this.

 

I was sleepy and wrote my post in haste. Apologies for assuming your intentions and the high schooler remark, WackyForeigner. The later posts you've made have shown a good faith that I didn't give you the doubt of.

 

That being said, I still stand by my criticism, which wasn't about the content of the post but the how it was an unfair framing of the conversations that happened in here or the podcast; others have pointed this out as well. I have no patience for that.

 

Edit: Furthermore, Grapefruit, I was the only one that responded in an escalating tone to Wacky. Those who disagreed with Wacky responded in completely respectful ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have a frustratingly hard time agreeing to a perspective wherein someone can create a work, people view and discuss the work and find meaning or consensus in it, and then the creator can come in and say "Nope. You're wrong, you don't get it."

 

I do see a perspective where the creator could say "oh, that wasn't my INTENT", which becomes a meaningful part of a discussion. Once a creator's work is in the wild her interpretation ceases to be the driving point of discussion. Perhaps that's wrapped up in your mention of the creator being honest and we are agreeing. I think someone telling all the other people they're wrong about a commonly agreed view of their work is not being honest about the work they've done.

I'm not sure how this is a response to my post? I never advocated for the thing you're describing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a creator intent is hugely important, even after a work is completed. To suggest otherwise gives too much power to the audience. I do agree that there is a balance between the creator being honest and the audience thoughtful examining that creation, but part of being a thoughtful audience is to not completely divorce a creator from their work. It strikes me as a dishonest way to approach writing or anything.

 

If an audience fails to understand the point of a work that can be because of a failure in the creator, the audience, or both. It is frustrating to read people like the Far Cry 3 creator disparaging their audience for their failure to "get the point," but sometimes I really do believe that the audience is at fault. With satirical output like South Park or the Colbert Report, the blame for not getting the joke more often falls on the audience, for failing to honestly consider the creator's intent and letting their own interpretation dominate all other considerations.

 

I actually mistyped/am an idiot, because I said "Intent is important part of discussion" and right after that I said "intent stops being part of the discussion!" What I think I was driving at was that the intent can become a part of discussion, but in contrast to the interpreted meaning. 

 

 

I'm not sure how this is a response to my post? I never advocated for the thing you're describing.

 

You posted right after my post, and it was about responsibilities of the audience and creators so I used it as a jumping off point. I realize I'm taking a pretty hard line here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does expecting an audience to take the intent of the author into consideration when they've been offended constitute enablement of oppression and/or victim blaming? Saying that someone's hurt feelings are ridiculous or suspect sounds a lot like a tone argument. 

 

Argobot:

If an audience fails to understand the point of a work that can be because of a failure in the creator, the audience, or both.

The answer to the question can be found in this answer. Intent is complex and not every time someone is upset by a work is it because the intent of the author was to hurt, but it is valid to be upset even if the hurt is stemming from a place of misunderstanding.

If an author of a work flatly says to an audience that they are being ridiculous in their response to their work that can irreparably damage the critical relationship even if they are correct. Simply being right does not make condescension or acerbic remarks helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

I've been a member of the forums for a few years, but only in the most inactive of ways.  It looks like I've stepped into a particularly serious thread to post for the first time.  Further, it's been 2-3 days since I listened to the latest cast.  I'm sorry if I err in referencing anyone's argument, it is not intentional.

 

I really liked a lot of the prospective Sean offered when talking about games as a medium versus movies.  I don't know how I feel on the topic, but I thought it was interesting that Sean talked about Ebert in particular.  My mind went back to Ebert when it was later stated/implied that games suffer a unique burden of antiquated review criteria.  Specifically, there was talk about how dissociative it was to have a score reflect both the heft of Gone Home and the polygons of Call of Duty.  I agree that it is highly problematic to critique such a wide spectrum of games with the same set score range (and general criteria).

 

Again, though, my mind went back to Ebert.  One of my favorite Ebert reviews is for the film "Shaolin Soccer" http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/shaolin-soccer-2004 . Ebert actually takes this issue dead on.  The review, a 3 star review, is almost entirely concerned about how a critique navigates disparate value-sets using a uniform scoring system.  It's a good review- highly recommended.

 

I bring this up not to disagree with Sean on the general point discussed in the cast, just to say that there is a strong argument that games criticism is not unique in this regard.  It's still a funky mudhole, even if game reviews share this with movie reviews.

 

Anyway, enjoy the cast.  I think it's really been spectacular lately- thanks for what you guys do.

 

demonbox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bring this up not to disagree with Sean on the general point discussed in the cast, just to say that there is a strong argument that games criticism is not unique in this regard.

 

The argument from the podcast, so far as I can tell, is more that most game reviews don't do what Ebert did, not that games are so much more diverse than movies that you can't review them the same way.

 

And that "Shaolin Soccer" review was good, thanks for sharing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great episode. I do have one request, though. A web page (or forum thread) with the current sponsors would be really handy for remembering things like whether I'm supposed to use a code when ordering savory peas from Nature Box.

 

I am interested in signing up for Nature Box.  Is there an Idle Thumbs discount code or do we enter somewhere to give you folks credit for the reference?

 

When will the Chris Remo Pea Box be available?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 4 days this thread has managed to break into the top 5 most-replied in the episode sub-forum.  :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, this week's episode title sounds like a Gurren Lagann spinoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, this week's episode title sounds like a Gurren Lagann spinoff.

 

"I hate references!" ~Famous. HE CANNOT ESCAPE THEM.

 

 

In 4 days this thread has managed to break into the top 5 most-replied in the episode sub-forum.  :blink:

 

It's pretty intense discourse, but I think it's just because this episode touches on a wide variety of things worth discussing at greater length. Might be one of my new favorites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaolin Soccer is also a good movie you should watch if you enjoy goofy martial arts movies.

 

 

 

I think the most impressive thing about the Nature Box website is the photography. There is really only so much outside the picture you can do to make something called "Oat Bran Dippin' Stix" seem appealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now