Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Was it worth the price of admission?
5 stars: The greatest show on earth! 6%  6%  [ 1 ]
4 stars: An entertaining performance. 19%  19%  [ 3 ]
3 stars: A three ring circus, nothing more. 19%  19%  [ 3 ]
2 stars: I've seen better. 38%  38%  [ 6 ]
1 star: Never coming back again! 19%  19%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 16
Author Message
 Post Post subject: Re: 733: Big Trouble Under the Big Top
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:49 pm 
I'll catch up to Bren!
User avatar
The man that stops the monsters

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:39 pm

Posts: 5106
Age: 101

Cash: 2,134.66
Bank: 3.96
Blog: View Blog (25)
Pound Foolish wrote:
In the spoiler is a completely unrelated ranting prelude to my post. If you do not wish to read an unrelated ranting prelude, do not click it. :)
Why is it that nobody seems to care much about the new season? In fact, we Soda Shoppers had to start the topics on it, and people are still barely replying. It's as if you all said,'"It's fairly good. Not great maybe, but we can't really rant about it so there's not much to say." But when I defend a favorite episode, you guys kinda swamp me. "Ooh, some poor fool is defending album 51. Let's all post until he gives up his stance." I mean, seriously, I post just a few posts defending Big Trouble Under the Big Top, an episode that was out months ago, and I get about five posts arguing with me!


Yeah, we don't really care about the show, we just like ranting and tearing down pitiful Soda Shoppers' hopes, dreams, and opinions! :x

_________________
Photobucket was evil and made third-party display a premium feature. Then they increased the size and obnoxiousness of the placeholder advertisement encouraging me to upgrade. Thus, this text signature.


Top
  Offline Profile E-mail  
      
 Post Post subject: Re: 733: Big Trouble Under the Big Top
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 6:23 pm 
i haz xpirenancee!!1
User avatar
Oh Anna Sun

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:24 am

Posts: 19314
Age: 21
Gender: Female

Cash: 4.50
Bank: 10,100.00
Blog: View Blog (25)
Pound Foolish wrote:
Firstly. The point was things like poor grammar are likely to be an objective problem in a book if done accidentally. If a genius like Emily Dickinson chooses to deliberately use them to her advantage the results can hardly be expected to be the same. That is another matter entirely.

Further, most writers will agree that there are indeed objective stylistic mistakes an author can make, and that most books do indeed have objective problems that are indeed bad.

Anyway, we are discussing fiction. Poetry tends to have more leeway in things like grammar.

Quote:
I don't buy it. You perception is innately biased and will continue to be that way. Your perception is fiction-- just as mine is.

Absolutely. We are not arguing perception at this point. The question is, "Can stories be objectively bad or good?" People can never be sure if they have determined if a work of fiction is good or bad, but that is not the point. The question, again, is if stories can be objectively good or bad. That is, if they have a standard of excellence apart from human perception.

Secondly. We know that there is at least one objective standard of whether fiction is good or bad. If it has bad morals, if it is overly steamy or gory for example, then it is a bad book with bad morals. Not because people perceive it to be, but because it is. The bad morals come through the work of fiction and no other way. You may assume that is the lone exception. But why? Where there is one, there may be more. We don't find one and say, "There is one, that means there are probably no more."

P.S. So, you people's premise is that the excellence of fiction is subjective? It's whatever we perceive it to be? Very well then.

I perceive that the excellence of fiction is not subjective.


i) If there is such a thing as "objectively good" fiction, what, pray tell, are the standards? Realistic, fleshed-out characters? Punchy dialogue? Who decides what these standards are? What are these objective problems? You keep positing that there's such a thing as objective goodness/badness, to put it simply, but I've yet to see you provide me with the magic list of standards that make a work of literature worthy of merit. You claim the episode here is objectively good. I disagree. So, somehow, you're adhering to the magic list of objective standards and I'm not? What if you read some of Gertrude Stein's "Tender Buttons" and say it's bad? What then?

ii) Claiming that a book is bad because it has bad morals only works if you believe in a Higher Being who gives us a moral code to follow. And at what point does it become "too much"? Is there a secret number/amount of gore or sensuality/sexuality that oops, suddenly makes something objectively bad? Is subtle innuendo okay, but explicit gore not? What if alternate meanings give a piece of poetry a sexual charge? This objective standard, weak as it already is, works only if you believe that you get your morals from God. And even then. .it's not objective, because people interpret sacred texts differently, so from the same text, one can derive multiple moral codes. It doesn't work.

There are countless works of art that were at one time reviled and scorned, and now are highly esteemed. No matter what, say, TV show you take, even if it's received outstanding critical and popular acclaim, there will always be those who can provide coherent and valid reasons to support their dislike of it. Literature and art is subjective. Objectively good literature does not exist.

And finally, your perceiving that literature can be objectively good/=/to your statement that "there is no such thing as subjective reality," a statement that would cause countless people to headdesk, myself included. You are entitled to your own opinion, however wrong that might be, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

_________________
"I still see Marvin as a newbie that is just as cool as an oldie." --snubs

Most Sarcastic Poster | Most Likely To Be Eaten By a Dinosaur and Smote by God |
Biggest Joker and Grammar Nazi | Best Writer


Top
  Offline Profile E-mail  
      
 Post Post subject: Re: 733: Big Trouble Under the Big Top
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 6:53 pm 
I spam the HH. A lot
User avatar
can I finally update my status, or...?

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:54 pm

Posts: 4171
Age: 22
Gender: Female

Cash: 4,955.99
Bank: 0.00
Blog: View Blog (14)
Pound Foolish wrote:
I asked Tiger to admit it's an objectively good episode, because she had been unable to prove otherwise. If you lose a debate, then at least in the context of that debate, you admit you're wrong.


You asked me to do nothing of the sort, and I will therefore not "admit" to anything. You were debating me on the matter of whether or not anything can be objectively good or bad, not if this episode was specifically.

Pound Foolish wrote:
"Ooh, some poor fool is defending album 51. Let's all post until he gives up his stance." I mean, seriously, I post just a few posts defending Big Trouble Under the Big Top, an episode that was out months ago, and I get about five posts arguing with me!


I won't deny that ToOers tend to be hostile toward the relaunch, but when you begin a post claiming that we disliked the episode solely because we dislike Emily (and if I recall correctly, dislike of Emily wasn't even given as a reason by most posters in this thread) and telling us how much we should love it because the rest of the AIO blogging world allegedly loved it, you should not be surprised to find that we get our hackles up. We don't mind when someone states that they liked an episode that most of us didn't and gives a well-thought-out argument in its favor; we mind if someone comes in, makes the assumptions you made, and then gets incredibly defensive just because not everyone thinks the relaunch is as great as you do.

Pound Foolish wrote:
Still, we cannot prove a book is good, so people sometimes get confused. Sometimes people think that because we can't prove something, it must be subjective.


As Shadowpaw said, objectivity deals with express fact, something that is absolutely true and real. If you cannot prove it, it isn't a fact by default, and is therefore not objective. The fact that everyone's standards on what is "good" literature and "bad" literature are different is in fact proof that such things are subjective.

_________________
Image
"Death's got an Invisibility Cloak?" "So he can sneak up on people. Sometimes he gets bored of running at them, flapping his arms and shrieking..."
"And now the spinning. Thank you for nothing, you useless reptile."
"It unscrews the other way."
AIO tumblr sideblog


Top
  Offline Profile  
      
 Post Post subject: Re: 733: Big Trouble Under the Big Top
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 4:14 am 
i haz xpirenancee!!1
User avatar
Oh Anna Sun

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:24 am

Posts: 19314
Age: 21
Gender: Female

Cash: 4.50
Bank: 10,100.00
Blog: View Blog (25)
TigerintheShadows wrote:
I won't deny that ToOers tend to be hostile toward the relaunch, but when you begin a post claiming that we disliked the episode solely because we dislike Emily (and if I recall correctly, dislike of Emily wasn't even given as a reason by most posters in this thread) and telling us how much we should love it because the rest of the AIO blogging world allegedly loved it, you should not be surprised to find that we get our hackles up. We don't mind when someone states that they liked an episode that most of us didn't and gives a well-thought-out argument in its favor; we mind if someone comes in, makes the assumptions you made, and then gets incredibly defensive just because not everyone thinks the relaunch is as great as you do.


Also, this. Yes, I don't care too much for the majority of the episodes since the relaunch (although The Inspiration Station is actually one of my favorite episodes), and yes, Emily is nowhere on my list of favorite characters. .but she wasn't my main issue with the episode. In fact, look at what I originally posted:

Marvin D. wrote:
Ew. Ew. Ew.

1.5/5

I knew that it was Nina. Emily grated on my nerves. How was Esteban Noodles? Mr. Pockets sounded terrible. The ending was so terribly cliche. And I. Hate. Clowns.

Goodness.


Marvin D. wrote:
I need to say something about the lesson. I honestly didn't guess that *that* would be the moral. There didn't even seem to be much of one at first; if anything, I thought it was going to be about how everybody's one big family, like the Body of Christ, but still.


For me, there was hardly anything redeemable or original: the actors were horrible, the plot was completely contrived and cliche in every aspect imaginable, I disliked the music, and the ending was completely predictable and so very underwhelming (not to mention unrealistic). Even if Emily had not been in that episode, that wouldn't have changed my rating. Waltzing in here with a not-so-subtle holier-than-thou, patronizing attitude about how it's TOTES OBVZ that like, EVERYBODY ELSE LOVED IT and we're just a bunch of pathetic Emily-haters who can't see past our stupid prejudices is both insulting and puerile.

_________________
"I still see Marvin as a newbie that is just as cool as an oldie." --snubs

Most Sarcastic Poster | Most Likely To Be Eaten By a Dinosaur and Smote by God |
Biggest Joker and Grammar Nazi | Best Writer


Top
  Offline Profile E-mail  
      
 Post Post subject: Re: 733: Big Trouble Under the Big Top
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 4:52 pm 
Why am I even here?
User avatar
flummoxed and gobsmacked

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:14 pm

Posts: 121
Gender: Male

Cash: 439.11
Blog: View Blog (3)
Quote:
I won't deny that ToOers tend to be hostile toward the relaunch, but when you begin a post claiming that we disliked the episode solely because we dislike Emily (and if I recall correctly, dislike of Emily wasn't even given as a reason by most posters in this thread) and telling us how much we should love it because the rest of the AIO blogging world allegedly loved it, you should not be surprised to find that we get our hackles up.

If I had said that, then I would not be surprised and upraising hackles. However, I did not.
TigerintheShadows wrote:
Waltzing in here with a not-so-subtle holier-than-thou, patronizing attitude about how it's TOTES OBVZ that like, EVERYBODY ELSE LOVED IT and we're just a bunch of pathetic Emily-haters who can't see past our stupid prejudices is both insulting and puerile.

Okay, enough with the remarks about my "attitude" and such. I fail to see what I said that was so rude. I said:
Quote:
Why is it people are so determined to dislike Emily and nearly every episode she's in? A bit of bias here?

The interesting thing is, while many Emily Haters insist the show is bad, the AIO blogging world approved. That is, let us remember, those who, unlike us, care enough about AIO and listen to the show closely enough and formulate their opinions enough to write a blog about them. Even the Odyssey Scoop, the biggest and most successful AIO fan site in existence, all but raved about it in its podcast.


It is a fact people tend to dislike Emily in every episode she's in. True, when I said that, I didn't know that for a fact about you people. But, nobody, including you, has yet said, "What do you mean, dislike every episode Emily's in? Emily's one of my favorite characters! I like her episodes." I did not imply that you dislike the episode only because of Emily, I was just pointing out people seem to often be biased against Emily episodes because they strongly dislike the main character. Far from claiming that was "solely" your reason, however, I did my best to refute your reasons afterward in the same post.

And citing people who like the episode wasn't so condescending either. I was quoting a higher authority on the subject we were discussing, a perfectly normal If this were a discussion about music, I might quote Tchaikovsky. If we were discussing food, I might quote Julia Child. As we are discussing AIO, I cited Kevin McCreary to back up my case. That's unusual, but it's not socially wrong.

Now, I do sometimes say something offensive online when I don't mean to as it can be hard to translate one's thoughts into a typed out reply with no facial expressions or tones of voice. If I did, I apologize.

However, Marvin, you never even asked for an apology. So I don't know what you want from me.

If I did indeed say unkind things, it was about you fellows' perspective on AIO. You, on the other hand, seem to be making judgements on my "attitude" (your word.)

Based on one post.

That I made in June.

And it is October.

Enough. Please.

Marvin D. wrote:

i) If there is such a thing as "objectively good" fiction, what, pray tell, are the standards? Realistic, fleshed-out characters? Punchy dialogue? Who decides what these standards are? What are these objective problems? You keep positing that there's such a thing as objective goodness/badness, to put it simply, but I've yet to see you provide me with the magic list of standards that make a work of literature worthy of merit. You claim the episode here is objectively good. I disagree. So, somehow, you're adhering to the magic list of objective standards and I'm not? What if you read some of Gertrude Stein's "Tender Buttons" and say it's bad? What then?


We've been over this.

Quote:
Firstly. The point was things like poor grammar are likely to be an objective problem in a book if done accidentally. If a genius like Emily Dickinson chooses to deliberately use them to her advantage the results can hardly be expected to be the same. That is another matter entirely.

Further, most writers will agree that there are indeed objective stylistic mistakes an author can make, and that most books do indeed have objective problems that are indeed bad.
Marvin D. wrote:
ii) Claiming that a book is bad because it has bad morals only works if you believe in a Higher Being who gives us a moral code to follow. And at what point does it become "too much"? Is there a secret number/amount of gore or sensuality/sexuality that oops, suddenly makes something objectively bad? Is subtle innuendo okay, but explicit gore not? What if alternate meanings give a piece of poetry a sexual charge? This objective standard, weak as it already is, works only if you believe that you get your morals from God. And even then. .it's not objective, because people interpret sacred texts differently, so from the same text, one can derive multiple moral codes. It doesn't work.


Marvin, Tiger in the Shadows,Let's just forget everything else for the moment and focus on the overall concept here. This is getting awful complicated.

First, let's define objective and subjective reality. What is it to you two?

_________________
Image


Last edited by Pound Foolish on Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  Offline Profile E-mail  
      
 Post Post subject: Re: 733: Big Trouble Under the Big Top
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 5:18 pm 
I spam the HH. A lot
User avatar
can I finally update my status, or...?

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:54 pm

Posts: 4171
Age: 22
Gender: Female

Cash: 4,955.99
Bank: 0.00
Blog: View Blog (14)
What objectivity and subjectivity are is defined thusly:

Merriam-Webster wrote:
objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>

subjective: peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments>; modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident>


Objectivity concerns facts—what actually happened. Subjectivity concerns perception of facts.

It's another way of phrasing what we talked about in my English class last year when we read Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried, which would a first glance appear to be a memoir of his experience in Vietnam were it not for the fact that nothing in there actually happened. The point is to outline the difference between "story truth" and "happening truth"; happening-truth is the barebones facts, while story-truth is the emotional impact the facts had—what the facts mean to you. The story-truth is what we are calling subjective reality, while the happening-truth is what we are calling objective reality.

_________________
Image
"Death's got an Invisibility Cloak?" "So he can sneak up on people. Sometimes he gets bored of running at them, flapping his arms and shrieking..."
"And now the spinning. Thank you for nothing, you useless reptile."
"It unscrews the other way."
AIO tumblr sideblog


Top
  Offline Profile  
      
 Post Post subject: Re: 733: Big Trouble Under the Big Top
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 5:22 pm 
i haz xpirenancee!!1
User avatar
Oh Anna Sun

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:24 am

Posts: 19314
Age: 21
Gender: Female

Cash: 4.50
Bank: 10,100.00
Blog: View Blog (25)
Objective reality is that which exists independent of human opinions, perceptions, beliefs, etc.

Subjective reality is each person's experience of the world, based on their ideological and religious preferences, socioeconomic status, upbringing, and other "mental fillers."

_________________
"I still see Marvin as a newbie that is just as cool as an oldie." --snubs

Most Sarcastic Poster | Most Likely To Be Eaten By a Dinosaur and Smote by God |
Biggest Joker and Grammar Nazi | Best Writer


Last edited by Marvin D. on Sun Oct 05, 2014 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  Offline Profile E-mail  
      
 Post Post subject: Re: 733: Big Trouble Under the Big Top
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:07 pm 
I don’t know what I’m doing!

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:51 pm

Posts: 5

Cash: 24.38
Hey, I finally have come close enough to catching up to current Odyssey that the review topic for the episode I just heard is still being discussed! (sort of) :)

And here's the funny thing. I completely disagree with Pound Foolish's statements about objective good and bad, and that there is some sort of "higher authority" when it comes to reviewing Adventures In Odyssey episodes (I have no idea who Kevin McCreary is) but I actually liked this episode. :lol:

I waffled back and forth between giving it a 3 or a 4, but ultimately decided it was wrapped up a little too neatly for my tastes, so I gave it a 3, which is what I give the average good Odyssey episode by the scale presented here on this site.


Top
  Offline Profile E-mail  
      
 Post Post subject: Re: 733: Big Trouble Under the Big Top
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 6:53 am 
I'm finally a No0b
User avatar
今AIOを聞くか?

Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 3:37 pm

Posts: 718

Cash: 1,689.48
Blog: View Blog (1)
Exactly, right? There is no higher authority when it comes to AIO, except for Focus (because they make the show).

_________________


Top
  Offline Profile  
      
 Post Post subject: Re: 733: Big Trouble Under the Big Top
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:37 pm 
Why am I even here?
User avatar
flummoxed and gobsmacked

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:14 pm

Posts: 121
Gender: Male

Cash: 439.11
Blog: View Blog (3)
TIGER AND MARVIN:

Alright, excellent definitions.

So, according to you too then, if something does harm, that's objectively true? It is not subjective that it, whatever it is, caused harm. It's just a fact.

MR. WHIT"S END

Exactly. :) The Ceiling fan is amazing. "I hate this guy (snow man.) He eats my food, he sleeps in the refigerator, he turns on loud music when I'm trying to do homework, and he's dating my mom!" disclaimer: that is a horrendous misquote. I mostly remember the hilarious "he's dating my mom" bit. And I don't know who comes up with the titles for the Scoopcast, but they are AMAZING. Candid Conversations With Katie... Oh my.

_________________
Image


Top
  Offline Profile E-mail  
      
 Post Post subject: Re: 733: Big Trouble Under the Big Top
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 6:53 pm 
i haz xpirenancee!!1
User avatar
Oh Anna Sun

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:24 am

Posts: 19314
Age: 21
Gender: Female

Cash: 4.50
Bank: 10,100.00
Blog: View Blog (25)
I think your question is poorly phrased--you seem to be asking, "If something cause harm, it is an objective fact, which in turn, leads to it being objectively bad." I'm assuming that this ties in to your point that literature can be objectively bad if it causes harm. But you see--harm, strictly speaking, is only physical injury. In fact, if you do an online search on the word harm, results are "physical injury, especially when deliberately inflicted" and the like. Moral harm is subjective, because what you might call harm (say, "indoctrinating" a child with pro-gay messages) would likely be seen by a progressive social activist as a worthwhile, if not morally required action.

It is an objective truth that putting one's hand into a fire will cause harm. It is not, however, that reading Peter Singer's Practical Ethics is objectively harmful, and thus objectively bad.

_________________
"I still see Marvin as a newbie that is just as cool as an oldie." --snubs

Most Sarcastic Poster | Most Likely To Be Eaten By a Dinosaur and Smote by God |
Biggest Joker and Grammar Nazi | Best Writer


Top
  Offline Profile E-mail  
      
 Post Post subject: Re: 733: Big Trouble Under the Big Top
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 5:21 pm 
Why am I even here?
User avatar
flummoxed and gobsmacked

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:14 pm

Posts: 121
Gender: Male

Cash: 439.11
Blog: View Blog (3)
It was poorly phrased, sorry.

But is are not things like gay marriage evil in reality, whatever people may think? Doesn't the unfortunately destructive nature of gay marriage exist outside of the human mind? Is the nature of gay marriage real or a product of mentality?

_________________
Image


Top
  Offline Profile E-mail  
      
 Post Post subject: Re: 733: Big Trouble Under the Big Top
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:01 am 
The Council must persist
User avatar
GO TEAM 1!!!

Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:35 pm

Posts: 1542
Age: 24
Gender: Male

Cash: 296.14
Bank: 1,300.00
Blog: View Blog (5)
It depends on how much into absolute/relativistic morality and/or existentialism you want to take this conversation.

_________________
Image
Eugene-"Well, the sequence of events occured with extreme rapidity, but I shall attempt to recall them. I was powering my two-wheeler along this concrete pathway, when your personnage suddenly appeared directly in front of me blocking my course. My reflexes immediately sprang to life in an attempt to navigate an evasive manouveur around you while still maintaining course and speed, but I evidently over-compensated, and my Schwinn careened off the hardened path, taking me with it, and up-ended us both in this shrub, a Rhododendron of the heath family I believe, deducing from the leathery evergreen leaves, as distinguished from the deciduous Azalea, which as we all know is..."
Isaac-"You mean, you crashed into this bush cause I got in your way."
Eugene-"Well, that of course is another way of expressing it." Isaac the Benevolent


Top
  Offline Profile E-mail  
      
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
The site is in no way affiliated with Focus on the Family. "Adventures in Odyssey" is the registered trademark of Focus on the Family.