Click here for Arsenal FC news and reports

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57

Thread: So we can add theatre to the list of things Mo knows nothing about

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    We're not having this argument again. Clearly, Tolstoy is objectively better than Jackie Collins.
    You haven't defined any parameters. What is he better at? Being wordy, turgid and incomprehensible to the less educated? You might as well claim that Radiohead are the best band in history except on the odd occasion when they made the mistake of being too accessible.

    You may prefer Tolstoy's prose. That is because you are a pretentious student type, and you have every right so to do. If it gives you pleasure to wánk on about literature with your equally nerdy chums, good for you - I hope you all enjoy, and that one day one of you will see a real naked lady and describe her to the rest of the group. It will be the nearest any of you get to a sexual experience. But I digress.

    Tolstoy is objectively better at 5th form art student wánk, whilst Jackie Collins is objectively better at titillating frustrated housewives. They're not trying to do the same job.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir C View Post
    You haven't defined any parameters. What is he better at? Being wordy, turgid and incomprehensible to the less educated? You might as well claim that Radiohead are the best band in history except on the odd occasion when they made the mistake of being too accessible.

    You may prefer Tolstoy's prose. That is because you are a pretentious student type, and you have every right so to do. If it gives you pleasure to wánk on about literature with your equally nerdy chums, good for you - I hope you all enjoy, and that one day one of you will see a real naked lady and describe her to the rest of the group. It will be the nearest any of you get to a sexual experience. But I digress.

    Tolstoy is objectively better at 5th form art student wánk, whilst Jackie Collins is objectively better at titillating frustrated housewives. They're not trying to do the same job.
    They are both writers. They both write novels. The difference is that Tolstoy's concern the vast sweep of history, religion, philosophy, man's inhumanity to man and the human condition, while Jackie Collins' concern people in Beverley Hills having rather unconvincing sex.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    They are both writers. They both write novels. The difference is that Tolstoy's concern the vast sweep of history, religion, philosophy, man's inhumanity to man and the human condition, while Jackie Collins' concern people in Beverley Hills having rather unconvincing sex.
    I understand that. But why does that make Tolstoy's novels better? More to your taste, perhaps. More educational, so better in some vague moral sense? For the average punter Tolstoy's writing will be dull when it isn't indecipherable; and a writer who cannot make himself understood has failed, no?

  4. #34
    The best theatre entertains and educates, makes you see things differently or sheds new light on something. For me The Goat is all about Albee's hidden homosexuality, except it was written years after the event when homosexuality had more or less become the new norm. So this play is tilting at a windmill which gave up the ghost a long time ago, unless he is defending the right of people to have sexual aberrations which are still unacceptable?

    I didn't find it funny, I found it boring and rather pathetic.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    ... Tolstoy's concern the vast sweep of history, religion, philosophy, man's inhumanity to man and the human condition
    Terry Pratchett's novels do all of those as well, and very funnily, but you think he's shít too. Because he's too accessible and does cheesy puns? And doesn't even write in chapters?

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir C View Post
    I understand that. But why does that make Tolstoy's novels better? More to your taste, perhaps. More educational, so better in some vague moral sense? For the average punter Tolstoy's writing will be dull when it isn't indecipherable; and a writer who cannot make himself understood has failed, no?
    One offers edification, the other titillation, so yes, there is a moral dimension to the superiority. The whole concept of art is bound up with a sense of moral purpose.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    One offers edification, the other titillation, so yes, there is a moral dimension to the superiority. The whole concept of art is bound up with a sense of moral purpose.
    So for a song, a painting, a play or a book to be 'good', as defined by you, it must wear a cloak of moral rectitude?

    Fúck. That.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    We're not having this argument again. Clearly, Tolstoy is objectively better than Jackie Collins.

    Also, I am prepared to bet that WES was largely there for the goatsex.
    No goatsex, sadly. In fact, the only time you saw it, it was dead.

    And he didn't even have sex with it then.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash View Post
    Terry Pratchett's novels do all of those as well, and very funnily, but you think he's shít too. Because he's too accessible and does cheesy puns? And doesn't even write in chapters?
    They involve dwarves, trolls, magic and other nonsense, a. That makes them silly and makes serious consideration impossible. You might as well introduce Harry Potter into the argument.

    And as for that cünt Tolkien...

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir C View Post
    So for a song, a painting, a play or a book to be 'good', as defined by you, it must wear a cloak of moral rectitude?

    Fúck. That.
    Not rectitude. Weight and purpose.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •