Aug 17, 2015
commented on Ryan Boudinot's The Octopus Rises Is Pedestrian Sci-Fi Blahness
Boudinot's long-form has always been better than his short fiction, unless you hear him read them himself (the only funnier reader i've heard is David Sedaris). Boudinot's short fiction is solidly in the tradition of other irreverent satirists, like Barthelme or Saunders, whose syntax has also been similarly criticized by the more "literary" tradition. most of these are older stories anyway. Smith's review is like reverse clickbait. Boudinot seems like an easy target, so he's picking for a fight.
Jun 5, 2013
commented on Street Harassment
@3, comparing any woman to "walking around with a million dollars" in their pocket is exactly the type of thinking that perpetuates this behavior. reducing women to "what they have to offer" or "what they're worth" is the best way to come across as a piece of shit, whether it's actually a million bucks or "nice tits" or however you want to bill it. the idea that women have inherent "value" based on what they have to offer physically, or on "mating potential" is just dooming society to continue this amazingly stupid rape culture.
@25, unwanted, exactly. there IS no way to evaluate the response, nor is there one expected in a street interaction, therefore it's entirely for the benefit of the harrasser. if you hit someone with your car and then drive away, you don't have timet to evaluate their reaction, how do you know THAT'S not unwanted?
guys (yes, guys), this whole thread has really suprised and disgusted me. i thought slog readers were better than this.
May 31, 2013
commented on Lindy West vs. Jim Norton: Are Rape Jokes Okay?
the key issue here is who becomes the butt of the joke. in rape jokes, as lindy points out, this is almost always the victim. if the majority of rape jokes were made at the expense of the rapist, in a funny and successful way, it wouldn't be as much of a problem. if you're making nazi jokes, 99% of the time you aren't making fun of the jews, you're making fun of hitler. mel brooks did it. you're poking fun at the oppressor, and that is the context norton was trying to get at about laughing at it for an hour to relieve the tension. but it's all about the context, and norton is an idiot if he thinks mocking the victim is going to relieve the tension. the psychological release that happens is by flipping the power in the situation, and allowing the victim to feel empowered, to take control of their responses to the situation that was out of their control in the first place. mocking the victims, or taking the part of the rapist (which will be read as an attempt to sympathize with the rapist every time) does the opposite; it seeks to further empower the oppressor at the expense of the victim. comedy can be successfully used as commentary on society, but only if it is pointing out the problems in the culture and giving power to the oppressed. otherwise it's just reenforcing the worst aspects of it, at the expense of those already suffering.
May 21, 2013
commented on Would You Like to Be Entertained for a Shorter Period or a Longer Period?
i actually ended up doing (almost) the same thing: knowing i was going to see the movie in the evening, i ended up reaing the book that afternoon (i didn't time myself). expecially after reading it again, my expectations were not high for the film, and it didn't even come close. @11, you are right on with the framing device. it sucked, and carraway's character suffered as a result (that, and toby maquire sucks).
has no one else noticed that baz has basically remade Moulin Rouge? the first 30 minutes are basically the same movie, almost shot for shot, especially with the crummy framing device, and throughout the entire film there were stylistic parallels. Moulin Rouge was decent the first time around (though it hasn't aged well), but using it as a mold for Gatsby was a horrible idea.
Apr 20, 2013
commented on Swan Lake Is So Goddamned Boring
@45, you're missing the point of reviews in general. putting aside the fact that this WASN'T a review of the show, but rather a critique on programming, what you and Niehoff miss is that it DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE ARTIST INTENDED. period. art is interpreted, those interpretations are put forward as opinions and recommendations. yes, the stranger's tend to be snarky. that's how they do it. but it doesn't make their opinions any less valid. when Niehoff complained about Kiley's observations, she failed to see those observations from an objective standpoint. of course she knows how much work was put in by the company, the designers, etc. of course she knows the predecessors and influences of other dancers. but none of that matters. we don't. if those intricately choreographed observers come off as extras, that's not kiley's fault. it's how he interpreted it. if her vision failed to come across exactly as she intended, that's for her to go back and fix, not admonish the audience. she claims we need to move beyond the idea of "getting it wrong", but that's exactly what she's telling kiley in that article, that he got it wrong. she contradicts herself several times, but the point is, the intentions of the artist stop meaning a damn thing the second the curtain rises. after that, it's all on the audience. and there is no way to "get it wrong."