Moff's Law

  • Main
  • Laconic
  • Quotes
  • Wikipedia
  • All Subpages
  • Create New
    /wiki/Moff's Lawwork

    At some point during a discussion on a work in pop culture, the probability of someone stating a variation of "Why can't you just enjoy it for what it is?" in order to dismiss critical analysis is high.

    When pop culture and fans intersect, there are sure to be discussion on a work's merit and message. These discussions take place on blogs, message boards and even on this wiki. Sometimes certain subjects (such as race, gender, etc) will come up and serious analysis will take place. At some point, someone will say a variation of this question: "Why can't you just enjoy it for what it is?" This statement is usually meant to derail discussion and protect their favorite work from criticism.

    Until one comment poster Moff on Annalee Newitz's io9 article When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like "Avatar"? had enough. Moff (known in Real Life as fellow io9 contributor Josh Wimmer) posted this legendary comment, which was dubbed "Moff's Law" by race-meets-pop-culture blog Racialicious. The abridged, vitriol-less version is posted here:

    First of all, when we analyze art, when we look for deeper meaning in it, we are enjoying it for what it is. Because that is one of the things about art, be it highbrow, lowbrow, mainstream, or avant-garde: Some sort of thought went into its making -- even if the thought was, "I'm going to do this as thoughtlessly as possible!" -- and as a result, some sort of thought can be gotten from its reception. That is why, among other things, artists (including, for instance, James Cameron) really like to talk about their work.

    Now, that doesn't mean you have to think about a work of art. I don't know anyone who thinks every work they encounter ought to only be enjoyed through conscious, active analysis -- or if I do, they're pretty annoying themselves. And I know many people who prefer not to think about much of what they consume, and with them I have no argument. I also have no argument with people who disagree with another person's thoughts about a work of art. That should go without saying. Finally, this should also go without saying, but since it apparently doesn't: Believe me, the person who is annoying you so much by thinking about the art? They have already considered your revolutionary "just enjoy it" strategy, because it is not actually revolutionary at all. It is the default state for most of humanity.

    This "law" has spread to other blogs, and in some cases, actually enforced by bans. It was certainly a welcome voice to many a poster. Roger Ebert actually mentioned this on his Twitter account.

    This is NOT a "Stop Having Fun!" Guys trope. It's not saying that you have to analyze a work as if it were the results to a scientific test searching for the cure cancer. It just says that there is nothing wrong just liking a work for what it is without thinking about it too much. It's just rude (not to mention very annoying) to tell someone they're being stupid by analyzing the work and should just sit back and enjoy it mindlessly.

    Contrast Bellisario's Maxim. Not to be confused with the other Moff's Law,[1] the Tarkin Doctrine or the other other Moff's Law.[2] Compare It's Not Supposed To Win Oscars, a similar defense used to derail criticism.

    1. "You may fire when ready."
    2. "It is the proper duty of every British subject to come to the aid of the TARDIS"
    This article is issued from Allthetropes. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.