Books/Films You Know Are Good But Can't Get Through

[Hamish McBagpipe]

Heh, I think M+C is pretty damn good. Another one I'll admit that most of the critics (I suppose that's what I'm driving at) love but I can barely watch is the Deer Hunter. This is a goddamn snoozefest. Used to like it though. And, again, I like tonnes of movies from that time of the American film revival or whatever you want to call it.

[CD56]

"Great" Books I have quit 100 pages into:
Love in the time of Cholera
One Hundred Years of Solitude (tried them both thought maybe the first one was a fluke)
Ulysses
Crime and Punishment

maybe i have no taste, maybe i have no patience, who knows

[Dominic]

Moby Dick is a bore.

[john smith]

I've been trying to get through LOTR for years.

[CD56]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been trying to get through LOTR for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear they made it into a movie a while back

[mccreadj]

Godel, Escher, Bach
Don Quixote

[Hamish McBagpipe]

Phew, at least some honest answers.

[Blarg]

There is a natural tendency to fall in love with one's opinions and capabilities, and even most idiotic prejudices, and without thinking invest them with a completely inappropriate regard and authority. You see something like this happening when people give the popular rejoinder, "Well, I've never heard of that," as if stating one's ignorance was saying something definitive or putting someone else's argument calamitously to rout. In fact, a perfectly fair rejoinder might be, "Then it looks like you have little knowledge of the subject you're claiming an opinion on."

One should exercise the proper caution in declaring a particular work of art good or bad definitively rather than allowing that some things are a matter of taste. It's foolish enough for a well-educated person to let his judgment of a work's value be corrupted by his own personal preferences, but it can quickly become absurd when a person without a broad and deep knowledge makes emphatic judgments.

It is no shame to admit one is out of one's depth when it comes to many things in life; no one alive isn't. Things like art and literature can be deep and complex, and require a deep and complex understanding. It's not enough to be a nice guy, confident, or have great self esteem to be able to fully understand every sort of complex thing.

Film and literature draw on great cultural knowledge and tradition, and without a background in same, some of it is going to fly over your head pretty much no matter how smart you are. A great deal of art is metaphorical and really only comes together if you see the metaphors and know where they are going. In American and European art, probably the three great sources for the themes that get hashed out over and over are the bible and Shakespeare's works, along with the occasional nod to Greek classics and mythology. If one isn't at least somewhat versed with the major themes in these works, one's ability to understand the works built on their foundations will be partial, and because of that, one's appreciation will be partial too. In fact, much work seems arbitrary or about nothing at all until one understands the classical themes and variations and counterpoints to themes that the work is framed in reference to, borrows from, comments on, or tries to subvert. A man's step is more remarkable if you realize it's the last one in a thousand mile journey.

I've never read the bible, but have found that by reading about religion, reading mythology and folk tales, and reading some of Shakespeare's plays, I've gotten exposure to some measure of the most prevalent and important themes running through Western art and literature. I was no dumber before doing so, but with less experience and understanding, my ability to get the most out of any art, and even to understand it, much less judge it fairly, was severely lacking. With a greater understanding has come an ability to enjoy, and enjoy more, a much wider variety of books and films, because I'm a more aware part of the dialogue between artist and reader or viewer. I'm a more full participant in the process of art.

I'll always be subjective as well as objective, as is everyone else. But a certain amount of objectivity does apply to art. Without the tools, one doesn't see the whole work or have a fair chance to evaluate it, nor a chance to fairly evaluate the artist who produced it. Liking or disliking a work of art is not necessarily a valuable determiner of its true worth. Everyone likes and dislikes, and even changes their minds back and forth. But a lot of what makes one both like and understand a work of art is what one brings to it. Therefore one's judgment is as much a reflection of oneself as the artwork. When someone tells you a book is good or bad, he may be saying nothing about the book and merely telling you about himself.

The chance for objectivity comes in with some sort of background or understanding of the art and the context it was created in. With that, there's a chance for a fair evaluation. One needs very little of that to judge the worth of Deuce Bigelow, but to have a chance at objectively saying whether Citizen Kane is a good movie or not, an awful lot depends on the viewer, not the film.

Unfortunately, "good" and "enjoyable" are not necessarily tied all that closely together. There are different kinds of enjoyment, and some artists don't have enjoyment of their work as a significant motive or goal.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I always went through life thinking that art is the only truly subjective thing in life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the OP's point, but this is an outstanding post.

[jacki]

I found "Ray" unwatchable. Boring.