The "L" Word (Lazy) and Armchair Quarterbacking

Jhaelen · Nov 20, 2017

pemerton said:
I think one of these can fairly be described as lazy composition.

This very much reminds me of a project by Jan Böhmermann to demonstrate how bad (German) pop songs these days are:
The lyrics for this song were created by a bunch of chimpanzees (hence the "artist's" name "Jim Pandzko"), yet still the song became really popular and some listeners said how they were deeply moved by the lyrics...

billd91 · Nov 20, 2017

Jhaelen said:
This very much reminds me of a project by Jan Böhmermann to demonstrate how bad (German) pop songs these days are:
The lyrics for this song were created by a bunch of chimpanzees (hence the "artist's" name "Jim Pandzko"), yet still the song became really popular and some listeners said how they were deeply moved by the lyrics...

The lyrics were randomly assorted by the chimpanzees, but they were selected by Böhmermann and his team from other songs, ads, and tweets. So there was almost certainly some creative effort or curation invested on their part. It's hard to really call this lazy.

MarkB · Nov 26, 2017

pemerton said:
I don't think "lazy" has the connotiations you suggest here, in this context. It's not about "hours of work" - as I said, I suspect many composers of "lazy compositions" are working pretty hard. (An example of lazy writing: the BeastQuest books my kids read. I assume these are being churned out by their near-anonymous authors at the rate of about one a day - no laziness in that respect!)

"Lazy", in the sense of "lazy writing" or "lazy composition" or "lazy design" means something along the lines of "displaying no technical ingenuity or craftsmanship; trite or predictable; intended to avoid confronting a compositional challenge". That's got to be part of the repertoire for people whose job it is to churn out lots of words in a short time. (And who aren't geniuses.)

That's a subjective definition of "lazy".

pemerton · Nov 26, 2017

MarkB said:
That's a subjective definition of "lazy".

Only in the sense that criticism, per se, is subjective.

I personally don't take the view that my judgment that (say) Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea trilogy is better than BeastQuest to be a purely subjective judgment.

MarkB · Nov 26, 2017

pemerton said:
Only in the sense that criticism, per se, is subjective.

No, in the sense that you're assuming that just because you know what you mean when you call a creative work "lazy", everyone else also knows what sense and context you're using that word in.

Given the rest of this thread, that is clearly not the case. Therefore, using the word "lazy" in this context without further elaboration is not useful, as it is prone to be misinterpreted.

Henry · Nov 26, 2017

For me personally, if someone were to call something that I produced “lazy,” I would take affront to it. The only way I would not take affront is if I personally agreed, and knew that I had “phoned in” the work in question. However, if I’ve taken the time to release an official work for public consumption, I take the time to give it my best good-faith effort.

From the reception that the OP’s critique received, I theorize that those with a negative reaction probably take a similar view.

Saying, “In my opinion this work didn’t go far enough,” or “This work could have expanded on the topic a lot more”, those are both valid critiques; but calling the work “lazy”, even if coupled with specific critique for improvement, to me implies a pejorative value judgment.

Henry · Nov 26, 2017

Morrus said:
Or maybe it’s very clever composition designed to appeal to a demographic which is not you.

You may be conflating “simple” with “lazy” and “complex” with “hardworking”. A simple effective thing can take a lot of hard work.

The Cat in the Hat and Green Eggs and Ham are the two laziest works I have ever encountered.

pemerton · Nov 26, 2017

MarkB said:
No, in the sense that you're assuming that just because you know what you mean when you call a creative work "lazy", everyone else also knows what sense and context you're using that word in.

Given the rest of this thread, that is clearly not the case. Therefore, using the word "lazy" in this context without further elaboration is not useful, as it is prone to be misinterpreted.

Well, as I posted upthread, when I Google "lazy writing" I get plenty of links (including to mainstream critical journals like the New Yorker) that use it in the standard sense.

It's not an idiosyncratic usage.

pemerton · Nov 26, 2017

Henry said:
For me personally, if someone were to call something that I produced “lazy,” I would take affront to it.

Well, if someone called my work "trite" or "cliched" or "meandering" or just "badly written" I might take affront at that, too. Criticism can be confronting.

But that doesn't mean that the concepts are meaningless, or don't tell us something about the work being criticised.

Henry · Nov 27, 2017

pemerton said:
Well, if someone called my work "trite" or "cliched" or "meandering" or just "badly written" I might take affront at that, too. Criticism can be confronting.

But that doesn't mean that the concepts are meaningless, or don't tell us something about the work being criticised.

Just calling someone’s work “lazy” tells us even more about the lack of eloquence in the critique; it’s both too concise to be meaningful, and more often than not puts people on the defensive needlessly. Might as well just stick with a “meh” and a frown emoji, it would be more entertaining and offer as much constructive weight. At least “cliched” or “meandering” offers more detail on what one finds wrong.

The "L" Word (Lazy) and Armchair Quarterbacking

Jhaelen

First Post

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

MarkB

Legend

pemerton

Legend

MarkB

Legend

Henry

Autoexreginated

Henry

Autoexreginated

pemerton

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Henry

Autoexreginated

Similar Threads