Great/Grate

The following statement, pulled from a commenter on an AV Club post at the Onion, gave me pause:

(The post it's attached to asks whether it's right & good to be angry and in despair about soul-killing movies a la Daddy Day Care and Epic Movie--emphasis added.)

I loved this post. We shouldn't celebrate mediocrity, and we shouldn't bother to acknowledge these blatant cash-grabs: they're high-concept pitches and sequels with no reason to exist. Too much quality exists for Daddy Day Camp to merit a review. It's why I like to read The Believer: they celebrate greatness.

Uh, no.

As anyone who has read more than two of my posts knows, I have mixed feelings about the Believer.  There are few things at which "they" excel; celebrating greatness is not one of them, however.

I'd characterize their general stance as a celebration of the idiosyncratic,  with an emphasis on positivity. 

In fact, therein lies YPTR's beef(s): everything, from the random illustrations to the non sequitur issue titles (Oubliette, Neckfire!, Spoonbread, etc.) to the content of the articles and interviews is a nod to idiosyncrasy (or mild incoherence, in some cases). 

When it comes to the articles, this is often a winning stance: the reader's curiosity is piqued and then rewarded.  The other stuff (cute, weird illustrations; strange titles; one-page paeans to power tools) is so mannered to death at this point that to take any pleasure or joy in it is impossible.  You can't hold yourself up as a cool, freshfaced alternative when the incidental features of your magazine are mirthless and mired in the same stagnancy that characterizes, for example, the New Yorker's cartoons and poetry.

Also, the relentless positivity (i.e., the staunch refusal to acknowledge that houses publish books that suck) is annoying.

And this is to say nothing about Hornby's column, which is the sad result of stale lager and threadbare populism finding a willing host.

Comments

[Jimmy Beck]

Back to double secret snarkwatch for you, Mister.