I guess I am alone in being completely unable to relate to this at all. I am sort of shocked to find myself confused and off-put by a top submission on HN.
I like to assume that HN is a very broad filter for the most relevant high-level & low-level technology, media, news, discussion and tangentially related topics.I understand the need to have a broad focus, because restriction is friction and seemingly unrelated content can be extremely useful sometimes.
However, I don't find this cartoon particularly innovative or interesting, and to me (someone uninitiated) I would have trouble picking it out from the horde of look-alikes on cartoon network. Collaboration in media and cartoons have been around for ages, and adult cartoons have been around since the simpsons. Maybe this deserves to be here, but I could think of a lot of content I would rather see at the top.
One of the reasons Adventure Time is so interesting is that it manages a delicate balance - it is both your typical "kids cartoon" but also manages to appeal to an older audience. Most cartoons try to do this by slipping in pop culture references/jokes that will just go over children's heads - and AT does this too, there's a lot of literary and pop culture references; for example there's a great episode with Jonathan Frakes guest starring that heavily references the ST:TNG episode "inner light".
However, AT also goes beyond that.
It deals with themes like love, rejection, death, identity, and morality in very real and mature ways...but also in a way that children can relate to and laugh at it. There are quite a lot of episodes that deal with the main characters struggle with an unrequited love and heartache. An incarnate Death and "the cosmic owl" are reoccurring characters. One major arc is one of the characters struggle with (magic induced) mental illness. The show itself takes place after a nuclear holocaust has ripped apart the planet and mutated the inhabitants (referred to in the show as "the mushroom war").
One episode for example, the main character finds a bag full of miniature figurines in the form of all his friends. When he takes them out of the bag, they come to life. He becomes fixated on them. Obsessively pairing them up and taking them apart to observe their reactions. He takes the miniature version of his best friends girlfriend and pairs her up with another man. He stops sleeping, he just sits surveilling this tiny world he has become god of. It's depicted very much as a descent into madness.
There are quite a lot of episodes like this, and while they often get heavy and dark they never lose their young audience or fail to maintain an overall uplifting and optimistic tone.
You're not alone. I thought it was borderline for HN, because it didn't strike me as intellectually engaging, but we were persuaded not to penalize it by the fact that the article was unusually in-depth (or at least long).
It's important to realize, though, that Hacker News isn't just for articles about tech and startups. That's a common but wrong misconception. We want a wide range of intellectually interesting articles. That's been true for as long as HN has been HN.
I don't like meta-talking about what is good or bad for HN generally, but when I saw dang had chimed in, I felt obligated to leave an opinion. Like the top comment, I was both amused and happy to find this content on HN.
Given Adventure Time's regular toying with ideas like SCIENCE vs. MAGIC, boundaries of morally responsible science, D&D meta-geekery (character alignments), machine sentience (BMO), and all of the games it plays in gender & identity roles and other existential weirdness, I always assumed it's adult audience would be strongly represented on HN.
Not only was the article the most in-depth analysis of the show I've ever come across, but the comments here contain intelligent discussion and observation that lead me to similar analyses and content like Adventure Time.
This was a perfect article for HN, as I use it; identify things tangentially interesting to the 'hacker' mind, in all it's different forms, and provide intellectual discussion on it.
Thanks to OP for finding it and you (dang) for allowing the discussion to remain. Glad to have seen it.
I suspect there is the confusion between what appears to be 'childish' and what is sophisticated. Things can be "childish" but also sophisticated, a la Adventure Time.
Ultimately, I have met a number of people who are so incredibly serious (and usually fairly young) that if it isnt a math paper, it's a waste of humanity. If only our brains worked like that!
I am sort of shocked to find myself confused and off-put by a top submission on HN.
If you find yourself loving everything in a medium, it probably means the medium itself is fairly low quality designing itself to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I think it's a good thing to find things you don't like now and then.
Your point is a good one and I get it. I just feel like the top-submission is usually the one that embodies the essence of the culture the most. When I saw it at the top, it just reminds me of reddit. I am not judging the show based on it's value as show, but the value of the show and this article to the community.
You're being downvoted because you've broken rules 6 and 7 of the comment guidelines [1]:
Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)
so, what's wrong with popular culture? Or even sub-popular culture?
I find a particular affectation whereby some people take things that are popular then decide that they will dislike them on the basis of that and nothing else.
I didn't find this cartoon particularly innovative or interesting [based on the large article I read about it, to which this comment was attached]
I am not devaluing the show. I find that many of my friends enjoy watching GoT. I do not however. I would also be sort of confused finding an interview with the cast and crew on HN.
Let me be blunt, I don;t find this content relevant and I think others are suffering from the bias of their affinity for this show. Honestly this just seems like reddit,I am arguing a subjective opinion about a cartoon...
If your definition of "seeming like Reddit" is links to long, well-written, thoughtful, and thought-provoking articles, then Reddit sounds awesome!
On a more serious note, analyses of unique creative endeavors are absolutely in scope here. Running a show is a lot like running a company - it requires vision, execution, and a lot of hard work. I thought reading about this show (which I had never heard of until the moment I clicked on the link) was akin to reading about start-up companies, except with more compelling source material and more interesting writing than the usual start-up story.
Do you not think there is something interesting about a cartoon that appeals to children by employing imaginative characters and silly humor while simultaneously appealing to adults with existential concerns? For it to skim along the somber surface of the topic of mortality yet somehow remain lighthearted (though not frivolous) is a remarkable balancing act.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I've no dog in this fight...but it's a lot more than just an entertaining piece of media; seeing it on HN does not surprise me.
From the guidelines: "If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)"
Comments
I guess I am alone in being completely unable to relate to this at all. I am sort of shocked to find myself confused and off-put by a top submission on HN.
I like to assume that HN is a very broad filter for the most relevant high-level & low-level technology, media, news, discussion and tangentially related topics.I understand the need to have a broad focus, because restriction is friction and seemingly unrelated content can be extremely useful sometimes.
However, I don't find this cartoon particularly innovative or interesting, and to me (someone uninitiated) I would have trouble picking it out from the horde of look-alikes on cartoon network. Collaboration in media and cartoons have been around for ages, and adult cartoons have been around since the simpsons. Maybe this deserves to be here, but I could think of a lot of content I would rather see at the top.
One of the reasons Adventure Time is so interesting is that it manages a delicate balance - it is both your typical "kids cartoon" but also manages to appeal to an older audience. Most cartoons try to do this by slipping in pop culture references/jokes that will just go over children's heads - and AT does this too, there's a lot of literary and pop culture references; for example there's a great episode with Jonathan Frakes guest starring that heavily references the ST:TNG episode "inner light".
However, AT also goes beyond that.
It deals with themes like love, rejection, death, identity, and morality in very real and mature ways...but also in a way that children can relate to and laugh at it. There are quite a lot of episodes that deal with the main characters struggle with an unrequited love and heartache. An incarnate Death and "the cosmic owl" are reoccurring characters. One major arc is one of the characters struggle with (magic induced) mental illness. The show itself takes place after a nuclear holocaust has ripped apart the planet and mutated the inhabitants (referred to in the show as "the mushroom war").
One episode for example, the main character finds a bag full of miniature figurines in the form of all his friends. When he takes them out of the bag, they come to life. He becomes fixated on them. Obsessively pairing them up and taking them apart to observe their reactions. He takes the miniature version of his best friends girlfriend and pairs her up with another man. He stops sleeping, he just sits surveilling this tiny world he has become god of. It's depicted very much as a descent into madness.
There are quite a lot of episodes like this, and while they often get heavy and dark they never lose their young audience or fail to maintain an overall uplifting and optimistic tone.
I wish I had a show like this when I was young.
You're not alone. I thought it was borderline for HN, because it didn't strike me as intellectually engaging, but we were persuaded not to penalize it by the fact that the article was unusually in-depth (or at least long).
It's important to realize, though, that Hacker News isn't just for articles about tech and startups. That's a common but wrong misconception. We want a wide range of intellectually interesting articles. That's been true for as long as HN has been HN.
I don't like meta-talking about what is good or bad for HN generally, but when I saw dang had chimed in, I felt obligated to leave an opinion. Like the top comment, I was both amused and happy to find this content on HN.
Given Adventure Time's regular toying with ideas like SCIENCE vs. MAGIC, boundaries of morally responsible science, D&D meta-geekery (character alignments), machine sentience (BMO), and all of the games it plays in gender & identity roles and other existential weirdness, I always assumed it's adult audience would be strongly represented on HN.
Not only was the article the most in-depth analysis of the show I've ever come across, but the comments here contain intelligent discussion and observation that lead me to similar analyses and content like Adventure Time.
This was a perfect article for HN, as I use it; identify things tangentially interesting to the 'hacker' mind, in all it's different forms, and provide intellectual discussion on it.
Thanks to OP for finding it and you (dang) for allowing the discussion to remain. Glad to have seen it.
EDIT: for clarity
I suspect there is the confusion between what appears to be 'childish' and what is sophisticated. Things can be "childish" but also sophisticated, a la Adventure Time.
Ultimately, I have met a number of people who are so incredibly serious (and usually fairly young) that if it isnt a math paper, it's a waste of humanity. If only our brains worked like that!
Embrace neurally diverse experiences!
How some people can formulate an opinion with zero basis of analysis, or direct experience is beyond me.
To go one step further, and be confident enough to express that opinion is something that's not just beyond me, but is nearing some form of delusion.
If you find yourself loving everything in a medium, it probably means the medium itself is fairly low quality designing itself to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I think it's a good thing to find things you don't like now and then.
Your point is a good one and I get it. I just feel like the top-submission is usually the one that embodies the essence of the culture the most. When I saw it at the top, it just reminds me of reddit. I am not judging the show based on it's value as show, but the value of the show and this article to the community.
You're being downvoted because you've broken rules 6 and 7 of the comment guidelines [1]:
[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
so, what's wrong with popular culture? Or even sub-popular culture?
I find a particular affectation whereby some people take things that are popular then decide that they will dislike them on the basis of that and nothing else.
I find a particular affectation whereby some people make opinions on others based on their perceived motivation for tastes in popular culture.
Just to be clear:
You've never watched it, yet somehow manage to judge it as unoriginal and uninteresting?
I didn't find this cartoon particularly innovative or interesting [based on the large article I read about it, to which this comment was attached]
I am not devaluing the show. I find that many of my friends enjoy watching GoT. I do not however. I would also be sort of confused finding an interview with the cast and crew on HN.
Let me be blunt, I don;t find this content relevant and I think others are suffering from the bias of their affinity for this show. Honestly this just seems like reddit,I am arguing a subjective opinion about a cartoon...
If your definition of "seeming like Reddit" is links to long, well-written, thoughtful, and thought-provoking articles, then Reddit sounds awesome!
On a more serious note, analyses of unique creative endeavors are absolutely in scope here. Running a show is a lot like running a company - it requires vision, execution, and a lot of hard work. I thought reading about this show (which I had never heard of until the moment I clicked on the link) was akin to reading about start-up companies, except with more compelling source material and more interesting writing than the usual start-up story.
Open your mind, man!
Do you not think there is something interesting about a cartoon that appeals to children by employing imaginative characters and silly humor while simultaneously appealing to adults with existential concerns? For it to skim along the somber surface of the topic of mortality yet somehow remain lighthearted (though not frivolous) is a remarkable balancing act.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I've no dog in this fight...but it's a lot more than just an entertaining piece of media; seeing it on HN does not surprise me.
From the guidelines: "If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)"