What’s troubling me, though, is that some viewers seem to be treating “The Pitt” like a puzzle to be solved. They approach the show the way fans used to obsessively approach “Lost,” a mystery box series that became appointment viewing and seemingly broke everyone’s TV-watching brains in the process.
All of which is to say, “you’re enjoying a thing the wrong way…” Who gives a fuck? Let people read into things and try to guess what’s going to happen next. If it doesn’t turn out like they thought, and they get mad about it, that’s on them. But don’t shit on people for enjoying something.
When the criticism is, “you didn’t enjoy the thing the way I did, therefore you’re wrong,” that’s not a valid criticism and they need to stfu. It’s an air of superiority saying that there’s only one correct way to interpret media, which obviously is their way. That’s the issue. And this is about entertainment, not science.
It’s the same argument about an author’s intent vs the reader response, if people find other meanings and themes within a work other than what the author of a book intended, are they wrong?
At least in that case, the author is an authoritative figure for that medium, after all, it is their fictional story, so you could make that argument, even if it is weak. In this case, the author of the article has no relation to the medium and is just shitting on people for not enjoying a thing for the exact reasons that they do. Criticism on people seeing themes in a work that the critic denies exists is bad form.
If you haven’t read the article, I’d highly suggest that you do, and I’m sure you’ll understand where I’m coming from.
“It’s possible to be bad at watching a tv show”
All of which is to say, “you’re enjoying a thing the wrong way…” Who gives a fuck? Let people read into things and try to guess what’s going to happen next. If it doesn’t turn out like they thought, and they get mad about it, that’s on them. But don’t shit on people for enjoying something.
“Let people enjoy things” is a thought terminating clichee, though.
Not really different than “I didn’t order a yappuccino”.
It’s denying any criticism, and with that mindset you get flat earthers, vaccine deniers, and trump voters.
In other words: “Let people criticize things”.
Nobody is denying anyone a counter argument, but “let other people do what they want” is not a valid one.
I don’t care about this show, just fed up with it becoming the standard to validate any behavior with those thought stoppers.
When the criticism is, “you didn’t enjoy the thing the way I did, therefore you’re wrong,” that’s not a valid criticism and they need to stfu. It’s an air of superiority saying that there’s only one correct way to interpret media, which obviously is their way. That’s the issue. And this is about entertainment, not science.
It’s the same argument about an author’s intent vs the reader response, if people find other meanings and themes within a work other than what the author of a book intended, are they wrong?
At least in that case, the author is an authoritative figure for that medium, after all, it is their fictional story, so you could make that argument, even if it is weak. In this case, the author of the article has no relation to the medium and is just shitting on people for not enjoying a thing for the exact reasons that they do. Criticism on people seeing themes in a work that the critic denies exists is bad form.
If you haven’t read the article, I’d highly suggest that you do, and I’m sure you’ll understand where I’m coming from.