Do we enjoy bashing and trashing certain works and authors?

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,762
Florania
I´m no native speaker and can only rely on definitions in dictionaries. The Online Cambridge Dictionary defines "bashing" as

strong criticism of a particular type of person or thing

In my article above I defined it as "harsh criticism", sometimes tending to "hate speech" (e.g. bashing in Hip Hop texts). Of course it´s often a matter of interpretation whether a statement is seen as criticizing, as bashing or as hate-speaking.



However, there is not always the possibility of connecting criticism with constructivity. I am, for example, a decisive Islam basher, not seeing the least positive aspect in this so-called religion that could inspire me to any constructive view on that matter. Here "bashing" is meant in the sense of harsh and uncompromising criticism. Another thing is bashing of novels, here I tend to much more tolerance, partly because I myself write novels... A German fantasy novel of mine was bashed in a review with the argument that the (female) protagonist was completely unsympathetic, what of course is quite absurd... I suppose the criticism of "Wuthering Heights" by David is similarily and at least partially based on the aloofness of the story´s characters with which some readers cannot identify.



I think it´s useful to have some knowledge of the author for rightly judging the book.

From Wiki: Emily Brontë (she died only 30 years old):



Emily's unsociability and extremely shy nature have subsequently been reported many times.[47][48][49] According to Norma Crandall, her "warm, human aspect" was "usually revealed only in her love of nature and of animals".[50] In a similar description, Literary news (1883) states: "[Emily] loved the solemn moors, she loved all wild, free creatures and things",[51] and critics attest that her love of the moors is manifest in Wuthering Heights.[52] Over the years, Emily's love of nature has been the subject of many anecdotes.
(...)
In Queens of Literature of the Victorian Era (1886), Eva Hope summarises Emily's character as "a peculiar mixture of timidity and Spartan-like courage", and goes on to say, "She was painfully shy, but physically she was brave to a surprising degree. She loved few persons, but those few with a passion of self-sacrificing tenderness and devotion. To other people's failings she was understanding and forgiving, but over herself she kept a continual and most austere watch, never allowing herself to deviate for one instant from what she considered her duty."
Since we only have observed records, we cannot say Emily Bronte had Asperger's Syndrome 100%.
The bold guess is the Bronte siblings might have autistic spectrum disorder, since autistic spectrum disorder can be genetic, especially Asperger's Syndrome.
Interestingly enough, while their father lived beyond 80, none of the siblings lived beyond 40.
What led to the tragedy of the otherwise talented siblings?
The three sisters wrote memorable novels; Branwell was known for poetic and artistic talent.
I recall opening a thread about the Bronte siblings.

Willempie said:
Maybe, just maybe, some people were forced to read those idiots in school. The main reason they are considered classics is because the (surviving) other works are even worse.

And lets be a little realistic. There is much better chic-flic than Jane Austen around and the others you mention like The great Gatsby are only considered great because some literature profs say so. The story sucks and a whole mumbu-jumbo just to sound "artsy".
At least the Chinese literature is currently flooded with online novels, even though most are of dubious quality.
The common thinking is: if these works survive the ages, they must be good.
I keep wondering about the relationship between women or girls and chic (gallus gallus domesticus).
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,591
Netherlands
At least the Chinese literature is currently flooded with online novels, even though most are of dubious quality.
I tried learning some Chinese characters, but I gave up after a week:lol:

But yes online is on the up in terms of quantity.
The common thinking is: if these works survive the ages, they must be good.
I don't see this correlation. For older works maybe, but ever since Gutenberg it is not really a feat to survive the ages.

It is a bit like with paintings, when all of a sudden a piece increases greatly in value, because it is discovered that Rembrandt painted it.
I keep wondering about the relationship between women or girls and chic (gallus gallus domesticus).
You never check girls out when they walk?
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,675
Europix
I´m no native speaker and can only rely on definitions in dictionaries. The Online Cambridge Dictionary defines "bashing" as

strong criticism of a particular type of person or thing

In my article above I defined it as "harsh criticism", sometimes tending to "hate speech" (e.g. bashing in Hip Hop texts). Of course it´s often a matter of interpretation whether a statement is seen as criticizing, as bashing or as hate-speaking.



However, there is not always the possibility of connecting criticism with constructivity. I am, for example, a decisive Islam basher, not seeing the least positive aspect in this so-called religion that could inspire me to any constructive view on that matter. Here "bashing" is meant in the sense of harsh and uncompromising criticism. Another thing is bashing of novels, here I tend to much more tolerance, partly because I myself write novels...
I'm not an English native speaker either.

Let's say that in my interpretation, bashing is the lowest kind of criticism.

I see it as mean, intended to hurt (personally), often based on stereotypes.

It always exited, but usually was at the corner, the nagging full of envy neighbour. Nowadays it has a much bigger resonance. Internet …
 

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
. . . However, there is not always the possibility of connecting criticism with constructivity. I am, for example, a decisive Islam basher, not seeing the least positive aspect in this so-called religion that could inspire me to any constructive view on that matter. Here "bashing" is meant in the sense of harsh and uncompromising criticism. Another thing is bashing of novels, here I tend to much more tolerance, partly because I myself write novels... A German fantasy novel of mine was bashed in a review with the argument that the (female) protagonist was completely unsympathetic, what of course is quite absurd... I suppose the criticism of "Wuthering Heights" by David is similarily and at least partially based on the aloofness of the story´s characters with which some readers cannot identify.



I think it´s useful to have some knowledge of the author for rightly judging the book.

From Wiki: Emily Brontë (she died only 30 years old):



Emily's unsociability and extremely shy nature have subsequently been reported many times.[47][48][49] According to Norma Crandall, her "warm, human aspect" was "usually revealed only in her love of nature and of animals".[50] In a similar description, Literary news (1883) states: "[Emily] loved the solemn moors, she loved all wild, free creatures and things",[51] and critics attest that her love of the moors is manifest in Wuthering Heights.[52] Over the years, Emily's love of nature has been the subject of many anecdotes.
(...)
In Queens of Literature of the Victorian Era (1886), Eva Hope summarises Emily's character as "a peculiar mixture of timidity and Spartan-like courage", and goes on to say, "She was painfully shy, but physically she was brave to a surprising degree. She loved few persons, but those few with a passion of self-sacrificing tenderness and devotion. To other people's failings she was understanding and forgiving, but over herself she kept a continual and most austere watch, never allowing herself to deviate for one instant from what she considered her duty."
I thought I might get a response to my harsh criticism. On further review, I perhaps should have said "Heathcliff is a nasty, evil character. An imp from Hell who destroys the lives of those with whom he comes into contact." I was very glad when I finished reading Wuthering Heights, and don't intend to read it again.

And I'm not one to take the personalities of authors or artists or musicians into account when evaluating their works. If I like a work, I may try to find out more about the person who produced it. But not vice-versa.

Shakespeare goes in and out of fashion. He's been in fashion since the Romantic movement, and his quality is uneven, but I don't know of any theatre stronger than Hamlet, Othello or Macbeth
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
Floccinaucinihilipilification (or trashing/bashing) is a common practice.
I have use my search engine (Ecosia) and found a few people claim these authors or books suck:
Wuthering Height sucks.
Charles Dickens sucks.
Jane Austen sucks.
Neitzsche sucks.
Great Gatsby sucks.

"One man's bread is another's poison"; the golden rule isn't that golden after all.
Why are we bashing?
What render these works and authors suck?
Do less memorable works and authors suck even more?
It is human nature that when one person says White, somebody will insist on saying Black instead, the opposite of what is being claimed. Judas was the arch villian in most gospels, yet there is the gospel of Judas where he is a hero.

Some books are not very good, but they somehow have gotten tne reputation of being great works, and people are exposing the truth. For example, Wuthering Heights is overrated in my opinion, because all the main character is selfish and unlikable, and it mystifies me why people think it is a great book. The morality of the Heathcliffe is bad, yet the book tries to make him seem somehow noble.

Charles Dickson some criticized because his characters use a thousand words well one will do (Charles Dickenson was paid by the word), they talk strangely, and many of his characters are saps, and so on. I don't think Dickensons sucks, but I can see why people think he is way overrated

Neitzche isn't as profound and great as many seem to think, and his philosophy did help create the Nazis.

When someone reads a book that everyone says how good it is, and you must read it, but finds the book not as good as people said, it will appear to "suck" compared to all the hype. It had not been for all the hype, that same person might have found the same book just as merely not very good, or even ok, but because of all the undeserved praise in their opinion it appears to suck. Bashing is a way to counteract all the undeserved praise, to counterbalance with negative comments all the unjustified positive praise.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
1,329
Monza, Italy
As to Nietzsche, he had some really questionable ideas (e.g. Superman). So why wondering that some people are bashing Nietzsche?
I agree with the fact that Nietzsche had very questionable ideas (despise for contemporary democracy) yet I think he also had very original points which as a matter of fact influenced the whole Western culture at the beginning of the 20th century (revolutionary approach to art, anti-traditionalism); but the main problem with Nietzsche is understanding what he says, his aphoristic style, his metaphors, are sometimes very hard to comprehened so you can interpret him the way you like. This is why many people wrongly view him as a proto-Nazi or someting like that.

Neitzche isn't as profound and great as many seem to think, and his philosophy did help create the Nazis.
He was against nationalism, petit-bourgeois morality, Wagnerism, despised German culture, German idealism, despised anti-semitism (and enjoyed the Old Testament spirit as compared to the New Testament weak mentality). I also think he was deep, Freud, the avant-gard artists and writers, modern psychology, Heidegger, all recognize, in a way or another, his value.
 
Last edited: