UserAccess
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
God damnit. I didn't want to powerlevel, but this tweet is just steaming my hams like nobody's business. Okay, take a gander at the photo below:
These are Norton Anthologies. Some of you may recognize them, but most of you won't. That's great! That means you pursued college majors with futures and financial optimism! If you do recognize them, these are *some* of the tomes you carry around when you're knocking out a literature degree. Each one of these fuckers is vandalized on every page with my annotations, dog ears, and multi-colored highlighting. That top one? That's everything Shakespeare ever wrote. I've been through that book so many times that the dust jacket evaporated. As an aside, I'd like to add that my years siphoning earth juice out of the ground paid 20 times what I earned teaching this shit while laboring far less. Friends don't let friends major in English.
I've deconstructed, analyzed, and written about damn near every significant piece of classic literature in the past 500 years. I've forgotten more about story, setting, theme, alliteration, tone, connotation, allusion, plot, and any other form of florid literary faggotry than Bob Chipman's known on his best day. Degrees, certificates, commendations, I've got them all and they're crammed in one of my desk drawers underneath a stack of old Penthouses where they belong.
So, why did I confess to all that? Well, it's because I've suffered through Bob Chipman's analysis and it's shallow, often inaccurate, and frequently plagiarized. I had to lay my credentials on the line to testify as an expert witness.
With all that, I wouldn't dream of floating an arrogant tweet like this. This blowhard doesn't understand that the audience isn't rating the program, they're rating the critics. They've informed critics to eat dicks and Moviebob is double-fisting them with this response.
Given the high-falutin' media on my bookshelf, I could come across as an entertainment snob. Fair enough, but there's something I learned a long time ago when criticizing a piece of art. What is the work attempting to do and did it succeed? It's not about my tastes - Happy Feet isn't for me in any way but that doesn't make it bad. What was it trying to do? Did it do it? Did it get there but in a clunky way? Did it get there at all? Was it wandering around because it didn't know what to do? See, these are questions good critics ask about the media presented instead of moaning hourly that this Batman isn't the version that they think should be the only Batman and scratching off points before the damn thing's released.
In Chappelle's case? The audience expected to hear some humorous insights and have a good time. 99% of them think it succeeded. Why have people turned on critics? Well, evidently these critics approached the work thinking that Dave Chappelle was here to champion trans causes and were furiously disappointed to discover it was an hour of a black man telling jokes instead. And Moviebob sides with these critics. Amazing.
Bob isn't Tom Brady. He's not Elvis Grbac, Kerry Collins, or even Mark Sanchez. He's JaMarcus Russell at his fattest. He's lost twice as many games as he's won and has more picks than TD's.
Tom Brady indeed. The little bitch was on academic probation, fumbling his way through Video Toaster and After Effects at some clown college and categorizes himself with the all-time elites of criticism.
