Breaking new ground in aesthetic judgment: "the fact that it's sometimes mediocre shows how great it is!":

"And the episode might be stunningly affecting and brilliant—or only so-so. One inevitable consequence of such an experimental approach is that the results vary. But they will always be interesting."

"So-so" appears to do no work here. If the claim were "the show is high-variance, but the heights in can reach make the lesser elements worthwhile," that would be coherent and comprehensible. If the claim were "the show is high-variance, and some parts of it don't work at all, but it remains formally interesting even in spite of this--i.e. when it fails, it at least fails in an interesting way," the same would apply. But the claim seems to be "the weakness of certain elements just goes to show that it's the best show on TV," which appears to run together the claim about the show's experimental nature and the claim about its quality, even though it asserts different things about each.

No comments: