A movie/Book/band that has a following & GAWD knows why

I could easily agree with two of those without any further detail, but it might help your case here (and deal with the accusations of pretentiousness) to elaborate rather than simply to assert.

I've seen Shakespeare performed several times, and it's still unintelligible to me when spoken. I'm not exaggerating in the least bit when I say my ability to understand spoken Japanese is greater than my ability to understand Shakespearian English in iambic pentameter. It's like a completely foreign language to me.

I had a similar reaction when I read it at that age. My teacher pointed out that it was originally written as a serial, and that Dickens was getting paid by the word. The verbosity made more sense to me after that.

Huh. I used to have trouble with the language when I was younger, but I don't any more. Maybe my theatre training helped me with that. But i agree with Thistle that his lines really come alive when delivered well by actors who know how to do it right.

Same

OK?

Kevin Smith gets credit for being a great writer of dialogue, but I've never heard anyone speak like that. A bunch of pop culture references do not a conversation make.

Joss Whedon is better, but way too-lauded in that he writes dopey, cliched, referencing-something-better stories, but gets away with it by giving his characters a lazy faux-postmodern "wink, wink, we know it's all cliched and we're in on the joke too!" attitude.

Chuck Pahlaniuk writes the same book over and over. And the first one isn't that great. Listing things doesn't make a character interesting.

Family Guy is a bunch of one-liners that people now compare to the genius and depth of the best of the Simpsons. "remember the time I...." "What about the time I...." over and over. Tedious.

I'm not sure if that explanation fends off accusations of pretentiousness, or encourages them. Frankly, I don't understand the accusation at all. People don't like things that I love, and love things that I hate. I don't find that pretentious or surprising at all, and I'm not sure why my enjoyment of things other people would bother anyone.

For this thread, I've chosen things that have a very specific, cultish following of people who really like these things, as opposed to the tired "what is overrated" topic. I have no problem with people liking these things, I just don't understand the dedicated following they have.

See, now I'm going to look like an asshole, because although I didn't like William GIbson, I friggin loved Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. I could take or leave Snow Crash. I didn't love it, didn't hate it, but I definitely agree that it reads like a parody.

Even though I really like that book, I totally see that. It's part of what I like about it!

I think its interesting you mention the way Gibson's attempt to be too hip worked against him in his earlier works. It is certainly a distraction in both Neuromancer and Idoru, the plot or dialogue often being overwhelmed by the stilted prose.

However, I think he managed in later works to make the idea of cool, and the transparency of our interpretation of cool a key thematic element. As an concept it drives Pattern Recognition smoothly along, and while not the easiest book to read, well worth the work.

I have to admit, I think Stephenson is hit or miss. As a parody, Snow Crash is fantastic, with it lampooning several genres and anticipates the interest in Dan Brown (shudder) in what seems almost like pre-cognition. Anathem is an incredible work of speculative fiction, especially taken from the point of view of those residing in the Ivory Tower of academia today. That all being said, the System of the World series of books I found almost completely unreadable, they lost their pace and their plot in trying to dwell entirely in history.

Ahh literary criticism, always an interesting window into how we all interpret things.

First issue -- I think it helps, because it puts substance to the critique.

As to your seconed comment, following from the first, I think that simply listing names comes off as a kind of reverse name-dropping, in a your-favourite-band-sucks kind of way. As in, I'm so cool I'm going to dis all the people you like, without saying why.

The saying why helps me, at least. I can't speak for bean, of course.

That's great: because I *do* like Gibson a lot. So we can totally cancel one another out.

I totally agree with you. For my part, I was just curious as to what works others out there did not "get" or like but that had that cultish following. A simple list or a detailed account of why is acceptable for me. I'm with you on this.

reading shakespeare in high school was painful for me, because no matter how much i thought i knew what he was saying, if it wasn't explained to me line by line i was completely off.

though you're right, the few of his plays i've seen have made a lot more sense than when i've read them.

what do you mean referencing-something-better? just out of curiosity.

i've always loved joss for his ability to make me cry, laugh, and actually give a shit about what was going on. he does have some nerdy tendencies, but i've always loved the way he really takes the time to build characters. it gives his stories more weight.

Sex and the City.

To me, it seems to be just a bunch of middle-aged depserate women cussing. I have no idea if the show/film is indicative of "real" single women around that age, but good god I hope it's not. I hope I'm not that awful and obsessed with relationships when I'm that age, whether I'm single or not.

Also, are we lead to believe that when SJP's character is narrating the episode, she's writing all this in an article? That seems fishy to me.

+1

Never read the books. Never seen the movies. Never going too.

If it walks around during the day, doesn't have fangs, and "sparkels" when sunlight hits it: then it's not a vampire, it's a fariy on steroids.

Two thumbs right up.

YouTube is, can, and will be the rise and fall of our digital era.

don't you think?

The quality of dialogue is defined by realism? Since when?

Dialogue should be realistic or interesting. The first part of my post speaks to the former, the second part to the latter.

You're free to like Kevin Smith and consider him a master of dialogue even if I don't, you know.