First Post, about Palahnuik's "13 Writing Tips"

Interesting.

You made my head spin in a nonpleasent way.

You're taking this wayyyyy to deep. Like that epiphany when your high/drunk that that you can [I]never remember afterwards...... [/I] there's a reason for that.

I get what you're saying, and Shoot 'Em Up was an amusing little piece of cinema, but it was a parody. Ironic. It's a reminder to the artists, and I use that word with great liberty, to stop following these tired old conventions. Nobody is going to bring out Shoot 'Em Up 2, and it's not going to been as "art", if you will. The point has been made, and it was a reactionary film, not a revolutionary film. It was a simple and obvious parody made by exaggeration. It's not the kind of thing people will accept four different versions of. Take a film then such as The Godfather, it took the conventions of the gangster film and questioned them. Are these people heartless killers, do they just want money, have they no loyalty, no brains, why don't they work inside the law, etc. That questioned them and revolutionised how the viewing public saw the genre. Now, years on, these things are becoming conventions. Eventually someone will question them and the mass-media companies with those awful nameless directors will pump out film after film reinforcing these new conventions. That's how things progress.

My point being, we're not smarter people. That's what I'd like to believe. It comes down to, really, understanding if people are the sheep NME tells us they are, or if maybe they can form objective judgements about what's presented to them. Or people are idiots, and yes, this is going to lower everything and all we can do is paint, write, sing and make films for ourselves, because no-one will do it for us, and if people don't like it, well they may fuck off and masturbate all over Hollywood's next contrived thriller starring the cynical and reluctant tough fucking hero and his beautiful woman of varying ethnicity.

If you'll excuse the phrases, that's what happened with literature. There was modernism, and there's post-modernism, a reaction to what's being written, and a reaction to that reaction which has become what's being written.

Viewers [B]are [/B]smarter. The ones worth considering anyway. But you're right, this comes from being born, and being raised, in a culture in which we're aware of these old conventions, and from an early age of watching television and films, reading books and comics, listening to any type of music, we're aware of the mould and we're aware of what doesn't fit. Like you said. Ultimately it comes down to whether you want to appreciate something in context, or in itself. And art, really, should exist on it's own. At least in my judgement.

Oh dear, this is a befuddling discussion. I'm too young to speak about these things.

Why would you choose that awful username (unless it's actually your name, in which case, my condolences for the association with the more famous version of you)?

I think you make some valid points, but I disagree with your premise. I think audiences in general are not more sophisticated or smarter, in fact, they are better informed and more demanding (look at talkback boards like IMDB, aintitcool, etc), and simultaneously, they are unfortunately dumber. They've turned every piece of entertainment into a chance for some monday morning quarterbacking. Society's brow is constantly getting lower because it's an easier demographic to make, and sell, in quantity. Yet the record shows that when something new or thought-provoking comes along, it generally tends to be accepted and loved by audiences. The problem is, the studios/publishers step in and try to copy the model instead of seeking the next unique voice.

I want to start by saying how much I appreciate everyone's gentle responses. I'm going to address some random topics. Judging from your responses, it seems like you more or less agree with me. I am eager for someone to attack me with a cogent counter argument. Conflict is far more interesting... and I must confess I am very drunk (i.e. I am more eager to bullshit about abstract concepts).

In response to monkeywright, I think your smart/sophisticated argument is more about my phrasing than concept. When I say smarter, I am viewing intelligence as an inherent potential for cognitive reasoning. I am using “smart” to mean your ability to grasp concepts and your potential to understand more complicated ideas. When I use sophisticated, I am referring more to the base of knowledge we start from to judge things. We are naturally more sophisticated because we are inheriting all of this knowledge to start before we start thinking about new things. However, I may be misusing these words.

[B]Sophisticated[/B] (adj) – (dictionary.com)
1.(of a person, ideas, tastes, manners, etc.) altered by education, experience, etc., so as to be worldly-wise; not naive: a sophisticated young socialite; the sophisticated eye of a journalist. 2.pleasing or satisfactory to the tastes of sophisticates: sophisticated music. 3.deceptive; misleading. 4.complex or intricate, as a system, process, piece of machinery, or the like: a sophisticated electronic control system. 5.of, for, or reflecting educated taste, knowledgeable use, etc.: Many Americans are drinking more sophisticated wines now.
[B]Smart[/B] (adj) – (dictionary.com)
7.quick or prompt in action, as persons. 8.having or showing quick intelligence or ready mental capability: a smart student. 9.shrewd or sharp, as a person in dealing with others or as in business dealings: a smart businessman. 10.clever, witty, or readily effective, as a speaker, speech, rejoinder, etc. 11.dashingly or impressively neat or trim in appearance, as persons, dress, etc. 12.socially elegant; sophisticated or fashionable: the smart crowd. 13.saucy; pert: smart remarks. 14.sharply brisk, vigorous, or active: to walk with smart steps. 15.sharply severe, as a blow, stroke, etc. 16.sharp or keen: a smart pain. 17.Informal. equipped with, using, or containing electronic control devices, as computer systems, microprocessors, or missiles: a smart phone; a smart copier. 18.Computers. (def. 4). 19.Older Use. considerable; fairly large.
I am using the word “sophisticated” referring to consumers base of knowledge/jaded-ness. I am using “smart” referring to mental capability. If I misspoke or confused you... I apologize.

I hear what monkeywright is saying in terms of a sensationalized media and bombarded/dulled senses. I see that Corellion also agrees with me on a lot of points. However, Corellion said, "Viewers are smarter. The ones worth considering anyway." I reject the assumption by Monkeywright and Corellion that so many Americans are so much "dumber”. I will concede that I went to east-coast, private schools my whole life, kindergarten through college. I will concede that I now live in silicon valley, and my assumptions about this may be heavily skewed by my "sheltered" environment of "smarter" people. However, I think a “dumber” population would be very hard to prove. I would acknowledge that our educational system doesn't compete globally and is falling; but, I also think we have a different philosophy of education. The U.S. Aims to educate as many as possible, and thus we have a lower standard overall. This is the only country in the world where literally anyone can go to college. It may be community college, it may put the student deep into debt, and it may not be the right approach. However, we are the only country where this is possible. Most countries' educational systems are constantly thinning the herd, testing the kids and segregating them, and working them a lot harder. I have trouble accepting that we are “dumber” because there are so many factors involved. I'm not claiming that I am definitively right. I'm saying we shouldn't debate average American intelligence. It will end up with us using millions of random stats, and the debate stalling.

In response to monkeywright's question about my username, I use this "awful" surname because of my obsession with the Westboro Baptist Church. The WBC is the most universally offensive group in the USA. I follow them because if you believe in free speech, you have to defend the WBC. No matter your race, religion, or political affiliation in the US, the WBC offends you. I have a lot of jokes about how the WBC is a "Neo-Con cult created to attack free speech (the premise is that if you censor the WBC, then you can start censoring everyone else until you destroy free speech, blah blah, etc... all the jokes come from that thin line of logic [they really did get sued, censored, and had to pay 10.9 million ... making my jokes THAT much funnier amongst my friends] )". If you believe in free speech you have to defend the WBC's right to say insane things, That's my logic behind that...

[B]Personal Sidenote on WBC[/B]: I LOVE when people from the WBC get interviewed by mainstream journalists (CNN, Fox News, Tyra [not a journalist but a hilarious interview]). Journalists always have them on and act all righteous. They try and use logic to rationally debate the WBC. The WBC destroys them in these debates every time. Without fail, these phony cable news people look like idiots. They never realize that you can't rationally debate a total lunatic, and give press to the people they think "are a disgrace to the news and the USA".

I posted the Ironic/quality art post for two reasons: 1) I am very drunk, 2) I think this concept (the death of quality through irony) is interesting. I appreciate everyone being so kind, and encourage any input that is better defended than my own. I apologize for my poor grammar, writing, and use of "I" to start every sentence.

[SIZE=3][B][I]The power of Christ compels you! [/I][/B][/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Just kidding, hello.[/SIZE]

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and [B]MAULED[/B] forty-two of the youths. (2 Kings 2:23-24, New International Bible)

Malachi 1:3 - And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

DRAGONS

Hi and welcome...Very interesting...But It`s the right place to start...