Under the Greenwood Tree

Am I the only person who has seen this? Because it is hard not to think it's a parody of every Thomas Hardy and historical drama made by the BBC and ITV. It's actually quite funny in a sort of hearty peasant, floppy-hatted way.

The only thing that I haven't heard yet is 'ee, by gum.' I am sure that is coming.

ETA: Sadly no 'by gums' though there was a lot of dancing on the green and swinging enthusiastically. And I think it was a happy ending as no deaths in the snow/illegitimate babies/casting out. Hardy must have been in one of his rare cheery moods. (Though I was disappointed that I had managed to misidentify this one as the one where the guy has walled his dead wife up in the chimney, as I wanted to see the big reveal scene.)

Also, I bring you perhaps my favourite quote from all of classical antiquity:

"Sempronia, learned in Greek and Latin literature, was able to play the lyre and dance more elegantly than was necessary for a respectable woman."

Smugness and critical thought

I was over at TWoP looking for spoilers (in which case I probably deserve what I get, really) and reading a few smug comments there just crystalized something which I've been pondering for at least 10 minutes a while.

Why is hating something considered automatically more of an intellectual response than squeeing over it or loving it? There always seems to be a lot of posts around saying 'I hate x because I think critically unlike the sheep who apparently form most of the audience and who are sheep because I don't agree with them.' I hate lots of things on telly, but I don't automatically think that that means that my hate is necessarily a reasoned response, even if I would stand by it to my dying day.

For example, I gave up watching Smallville because I just couldn't abide Lana and while I could come up with a bunch of reasons why I do so, if I were honest I would say that they aren't terribly deep or meaningful. Or, I suspect, no more deep and meaningful than someone's reasons for liking her (I assume those people are out there, because Smallville is still rather popular despite her wretched presence). I guess a better example is my hatred for Harriet Jones, a minor character on Doctor Who. I loathe her based on about two lines of dialogue which isn't exactly a reasoned response, though it is not one that probably anyone could ever shift me from.

It reminds me of seminars in grad school where we'd rip apart books for hours and then sit back and think about how smart we were (something which is not a good look for me) because we had seen through their arguments. And then you'd go away and after a bit you'd realise that that was a bit of a waste of time and that you might want to go back to those books and see what they'd done right. (Sometimes I would do that and still hate them, especially if they were in German, but that's a different story). But there was this overwhelming group impulse to think that tearing things down was somehow more valid than seeing anything in them.

I'm not actually saying hating things is reductionist or stupid or anything of that ilk, more that it's not automatically more intellectual a reponse to anything you see than posting long odes to why you think Lana is the best thing ever. Well, maybe that's not the best example, but you know what I mean. But there always seems to be this attitude 'if you love x, you are an uncritical 12 year old who probably does not know the proper use of caps.'

Um, I am not sure where this is going, really. I feel someone ought to imagine a brilliant conclusion to this post. Because imaginary conclusions are the best ones.

Edited because I do not hate Harriet Wilson (or Harold Wilson for that matter), but Harriet Jones. Yes, this is obviously a well thought out hatred.