41–46 of 46 posts
Category: Entertaining B.S. Reminds me of Leonard Nimoy in "The Simpsons": "Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is no."
Sorry! I downvoted you trying to upvote..(the arrows are damn close at the iphone)
Can someone at Pixar confirm or deny this? Pees?
What? I'm pretty sure it's non confirmed. It's basically just nerdy banter (like Dracula vs Hulk). They base their assumption on the fact that movies contain models from other movies, when those are merely Easter eggs. It's like saying MSFT wanted to turn accountants into pilots for 9/11 by including a flight simulator into it. It breaks down under scrutiny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, though American, I studied German lit. as well, and I don't see it either. Line for line, my reaction mirrors yours.
So what you're saying is that all German lit experts are dour and depressing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? I'm pretty sure it's non confirmed. It's basically just nerdy banter (like Dracula vs Hulk). They base their assumption on the fact that movies contain models from other movies, when those are merely Easter eggs. It's like saying MSFT wanted to turn accountants into pilots for 9/11 by including a flight simulator into it. It breaks down under scrutiny.
Oh! Of course it's not confirmed. It would just be nice for someone on the inside to give a wink+nod, or tell us that's it's completely off the mark.
It's a wonderful example of how, given a sufficiently large dataset,
one can cherry-pick what one needs to construct almost any narrative.
My daughter broke the time line, though, by pointing out
that Heimlich has a cameo in Toy Story 2. I do want to
give the author props for inventing the idea of the
Monsters Inc. doors being time portals. It doesn't really
work, but it's witty.
As in the case of Andy's father the real reason Pixar
films contain references to other Pixar films is rather
mundane. It's only because somebody thought it would be
funny and the director agreed. In the cases of things like
John Ratzenberger's voice and the Pizza Planet Truck,
it's tradition and a challenge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, though American, I studied German lit. as well, and I don't see it either. Line for line, my reaction mirrors yours.
The worst of it was that most of the fitting wasn't necessary. There is no need for there to be a link between Up and Toy Story - both stories can exist in the same universe, as there is nothing contradictory. In fact, the author of the page doesn't seem to want all the films to be in the same universe. S/he could more accurately be described as trying to reduce the number of "magical" artifacts necessary to explain…
This analysis itself and the curious overwhelmingly positive response by HN and especially Reddit, as measured by vote tally and the mere inclination of the author to go to the trouble of creating a website solely dedicated to the idea, are, I believe, symptoms of how American schools teach literature.
Before describing my personal experiences, I want to note first that you should forget everything you've heard Americans prop up as excuses for our education system, if not entirely, then at least for this particular discussion. Science and history teachers may need to "teach to the (easiest) test (in the world)", but English teachers can and do assign whatever books they want - the graduation test is basic essay writing.
Anyway, American English teachers are extremely fond, for whatever reason, of "themed" curricula. For example, in my 9th grade English class, we read "Native Son" by Richard Wright (black American), "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe (black Nigerian), "Cry, the Beloved Country" by Alan Paton (black South African), "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad (the only white person on this list, and, inarguably, the only High Literature as well), and something or other by Maya Angelou (black American).
So, if you can't guess, the message that year was black people got it rough. If, in your literary analysis for any section of any of these books (even Conrad's, which isn't even about black people), you concluded that the message the author meant to convey with any even remotely logical elements X, Y, and Z, was that, indeed, black people have it rough, then guess what? You're right. X, Y, and Z mean black people got it rough. A+.
Yes, I mean it. Pick three random paragraphs out of 1984. "Orwell's opinion is that totalitarianism is bad, since, here, the authorities are torturing Winston." A+, you literary genius. Get something wrong for once! Please, just for the sake of variety! "In Fahrenheit 451, the firefighters' helmets are red because communism, which is also red." Oh my God, I never thought of it that way! Somebody get this 16-year-old a Nobel.
(The sole exception to this is Shakespeare, whose meaning behind any one play even the most idiotic English teachers are unwilling to reduce to a single sentence. And, wouldn't you know it, 80% of the students in class will inevitably complain about his insistence on using Victorian English, the big jerk. Literally, I shit you not, the majority of the time American students read Shakespeare, they're reading it in a book wherein the Shakespearean version is printed on left pages and the "modern translation" is printed on the right.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what you're saying is that all German lit experts are dour and depressing?
Ha. In one higher-level class (juniors and seniors), an older prof asked the class whether most students these days were religious. Response: "If we were when we started this major, we sure aren't now." Anxious laughter followed by contemplative nodding, all around.
And no, we are not dour nor depressing. Me (having been highly influenced by formalism and structuralism) just wanted to know, what made stories work the way they do? What are/were the pieces, that allowed so many different people to read so many different things into these stories.
I wanted to understand the ground, the basis of all this. And I believe, that this yielded some quite interesting and counter-intuitive insights into some texts.