Penny should go out with Sheldon

[Martin Pollard]

Thanks, @phantagrae, and @Nogravitasatall, point taken! I'm definitely not one to talk, given my daily battles with CRS syndrome ("Can't Remember S**t"). :D

 

And @gaqo... ah, never mind, it's not worth the effort.

[wannamaker]

I notice the only refutation you provided was to name call.

Your search and reading skills are obviously at below grade school level, as it states quite plainly in my profile that I'm 57. My grandfather is dead and has been for 40 years on my mother's side and 60 years on my father's side.

 

Please could leave your pesonal problems and troubles at home?

Personally I do not come here to read about family problems.

[ajond]

If this is the sort of argument, you're going to put forward, then why have you used a picture of your grandad, as your avatar? 

,Descending to petty name calling surely highlights the paucity of your arguments and is ,I'm afraid ,a trait fairly common with the Shenny. Possibly a generalisation, but true nonetheless.

[Spaced_up]

,Descending to petty name calling surely highlights the paucity of your arguments and is ,I'm afraid ,a trait fairly common with the Shenny. Possibly a generalisation, but true nonetheless.

 

On behalf of all shennys I would like to say this is not true. This is a two way street! Shenny's get hate even when we mind our own business and keep our opinions on our own website. There is someone who follows us all over the net, creating hate blogs and even directing them at individuals. Its got so bad, non-shippers are calling for the blogs to be taken down. Our fan fiction writers get trolled. One of our finest writers removed all his his stories because he was being stalked by a hater. Twitter is getting bad as well. Now, as a shenny I expect to get opposition but to make such a generalization as this required a response.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Spaced_up

[Tensor]

Please could leave your pesonal problems and troubles at home?

Personally I do not come here to read about family problems.

It's not a family problem, just a statement of fact. Go back and read the post I was replying to.

[I.Am.Molly]

Shenny's get hate even when we mind our own business and keep our opinions on our own website. There is someone who follows us all over the net, creating hate blogs and even directing them at individuals. Its got so bad, non-shippers are calling for the blogs to be taken down. Our fan fiction writers get trolled. One of our finest writers removed all his his stories because he was being stalked by a hater. Twitter is getting bad as well.

I have to say, this makes me sad.

 

Like I said in a previous post, I have and will never understand people's reasoning behind shipping Sheldon and Penny as a couple, I still find it icky, but I would never go out of my way to hate on people that do. It's a sad time when people can't be allowed to have their own opinions and show off their love for whatever it is, however odd it may seem to other people, without others being intentionally hateful for no reason.

 

I feel bad for whoever it was that felt he had to take down his fanfiction because they were getting trolled. It really is a shame that whoever it was felt like he couldn't indulge his fantasy. I still don't understand why people simply don't just ignore whatever stories they know they aren't going to like. I have given a few Shenny stories a go, just out of curiosity, and although I never liked it, I never, and would never write anything bad in either a review or to the writer, and I don't know why anyone would. It makes sense to me that if you ship Lenny or Shamy that you aren't going to like what any Shennys have written so why bother to give them abuse for something they enjoy, it's not like it's hurting anyone.

 

Everyone likes different things for different reasons, and whether I agree with your ship or not, I will never be able to understand why some people, like whoever it was that trolled your writer, feels the need to spend their free time giving so much hate to someone.

 

Alright, that's my little rant over, it's just stuff like that really gets on my nerves. The right to free speech and all that jazz!

Edited June 4, 2013 by I.Am.Molly

[djvang]

This thread is funny. Honestly, I will never understand where these Shennys are coming from when they allude to Sheldon and Penny somehow being made for each other, and having their chance at being together, hindered by Leonard and Amy. For lack of a better word, I find the mere idea of those two being together rather icky.

Don't get me wrong, I adore the Penny and Sheldon friendship, in fact, some of my favourite episodes are those centred around them, like the one where he looks after her after she falls in the bathtub. It's adorable, but that's all.

It really baffles me how people can interpret certain looks or actions and make them out to be much more than they are, or were ever intended to be.

Before I headed into the world of Big Bang Theory fandom and was nothing more than a casual lover of the show, the thought of those two together like that, never crossed my mind, and I'm pretty certain it hasn't crossed the minds of the general public that watch the show either. I was gobsmacked when I first saw that people actually shipped them as a couple. No offence to those people, btw, i'm just saying, i've tried, but I have never been able to see your side of it. I would see Penny with Howard before I see her with Sheldon. Hell, i'd see her with AMY, before I see her with Sheldon. It's just yucky.

Molly

 

It baffles me how people can get so worked up over the "love" between fictional characters.  There are entire topics devoted to it, including this one.

Edited June 4, 2013 by djvang

[I.Am.Molly]

It baffles me how people can get so worked up over the "love" between fictional characters. There are entire topics devoted to it, including this one.

I think people can get caught up in it for many reasons. Especially when the 'love' between two characters is acted well. People can be drawn in because they relate to it, or simply because of the chemistry shared by the two actors on stage or on set. The only reason I find it odd people get drawn in by the Shenny is because it was never acted out or intended to be viewed as that sort of relationship. But like I have already said, everyone has their own opinions.

[phantagrae]

It baffles me how people can get so worked up over the "love" between fictional characters.  There are entire topics devoted to it, including this one.

 

Dude, this has been the basis of theater for centuries...  If people didn't get worked up over the love between fictional characters, no one would have remembered Romeo & Juliet after its original run in the Globe Theater.

Four centuries later and we're still reading that play and talking about those 2 characters.

[djvang]

Dude, this has been the basis of theater for centuries...  If people didn't get worked up over the love between fictional characters, no one would have remembered Romeo & Juliet after its original run in the Globe Theater.

Four centuries later and we're still reading that play and talking about those 2 characters.

There's a difference between talking about something and obsessing about it. And that is obviously subjective.

[gaqo]

I think one of the problems here is that we are living in different time zones. Over the twentieth century, the art form/cultural object has changed in how it is percieved. It is no longer merely a closed form, but forms part of an open matrix, where the emphasis is more on the interpretation of the viewer. Excuse me if you think my BNC comment is name calling. I actually meant to use the words in the adjective sense, to describe the type of person who wishes to limit the interpretations of others(to that of a closed form). I don't understand why some people feel the need to go on threads, where they are not interested in offering anything positive, but merely stomping on the innocent fantasies of others. I think it starts like this, then we are banned from entering fanfic comps, next you'll want an S daubed on our avatars! Like I say it's all a fantasy, leave us alone.

[phantagrae]

I think one of the problems here is that we are living in different time zones. Over the twentieth century, the art form/cultural object has changed in how it is percieved. It is no longer merely a closed form, but forms part of an open matrix, where the emphasis is more on the interpretation of the viewer. Excuse me if you think my BNC comment is name calling. I actually meant to use the words in the adjective sense, to describe the type of person who wishes to limit the interpretations of others(to that of a closed form). I don't understand why some people feel the need to go on threads, where they are not interested in offering anything positive, but merely stomping on the innocent fantasies of others. I think it starts like this, then we are banned from entering fanfic comps, next you'll want an S daubed on our avatars! Like I say it's all a fantasy, leave us alone.

 

Your BNC comment is indeed name-calling because it is meant to be a negative description to designate those who disagree with the idea that the shenny is evident anywhere on the show as being narrow minded (blinkered) and and less "liberal" in their thinking (neo-conservative) because they don't imagine something that you imagine.  You're implying that those who disagree with you lack imagination, which is painting those you disagree with with one broad brush.

 

Any adjective you might choose to use to describe a bunch of people in a negative sense is going to come off that way, since you're trying to imply a negative thing.

 

And I don't think anyone's trying to "limit the interpretations of others (to that of a closed form)".  But your insistence (collective you) that there is some evidence to support the shenny (greater chemistry, potential romantic relationship based on scenes together, etc.) is obviously going to invite comment.  And with the title of this thread, there's sure to be comment.

 

There's a difference in having differing subjective opinions (this episode is good/this episode is bad, this joke is funny/this joke is not funny) and saying that there's some evidence in a scene that suggests a certain thing (Penny and Sheldon are a potential romantic couple because of...) when there's a prepoderence of evidence to the contrary.

 

Of course you're free to imagine all kinds of things.  No one can stop you from fantasizing about Sheldon and Penny being together.  But if you state that there's evidence on the show that such things are true, there's going to be rebuttal.

 

As for the closed form/open matrix argument you seem to be trying to make, there has always been interpretation of art--what is the meaning of a particular piece of music?  Did the composer intend a specific meaning, or do the listeners interpret it to mean something?  What if the listener applies a meaning the composer never intended?  Which is more true--what the guy in the audience believes to be true or what the composer intended?

While no one can stop the listener from applying his own interpration, one must acknowledge the composer's intent and if the composer did not intend the meaning that the listener applies, then you cannot insist that the music implies what that particular listener imagines.

Likewise, if the composer says that a certain theme represents a specific thing, one cannot contradict that meaning and insist that it must mean something else simply because one wants it to mean something else.  The listener is still free to imagine their own interpretation, but cannot insist that it's more true or makes more sense than the intent of the composer.

 

So, in this case, the writers are clearly stating certain things--Leonard and Penny belong together, Sheldon and Amy belong together.  They have left no ambiguity as to the meaning behind their writing.

If they had chosen to have all the male and female characters playing "change partners and dance", and had them all taking turns dating each other, then perhaps one could imagine any pairing as being "best".

But that is not the case here.  They've made it clear as to which characters they intend to be together and have shown that those characters prefer their intended partners over anyone else and that is how they intend it to be interpreted.

So, yes, you can imagine whatever you want about the characters, but that doesn't make that imagined conclusion more true than the intended meaning.

[gaqo]

That's exactly what we've moved away from, no longer is meaning attributed to the work solely by the auteur, but by the multiplicity of interpretations, and meanings attributed to it by the audience. If the audience wishes to imagine an alternative universe where S&P get together, they are free to do so. They are free to imagine whatever they like. Yes, in the nineteenth century, there was conservative attitude to control the intended meaning, but since then the work has been liberated. Actually most 'artists', are happy about that, and are more than happy to incorporate other individual's interpretations, that they would never have imagined. It then becomes more about the matrix, which is limitless, and less about the work and its creator. Also the work can be interpreted through many disparate disciplines. I'm not applying this to you, but its obvious some people are stuck in the nineteen century, and some people don't understand the subtelties of the English language.

[Tensor]

I won't bother to refute anything (since you just make assertions without actually providing any evidence for your position, but I find the following pretty funny:

...and some people don't understand the subtelties of the English language.

Would that be the person who used the phrase "time zones" (of which, the contiguous US has four) in place of the correct phrase "time periods" (which would be different centuries).

[gaqo]

It was a subtle substitution of words. Because I knew you lived in the USA. Start by reading 'The Open Work' by Umberto ECO. 

[phantagrae]

That's exactly what we've moved away from, no longer is meaning attributed to the work solely by the auteur, but by the multiplicity of interpretations, and meanings attributed to it by the audience. If the audience wishes to imagine an alternative universe where S&P get together, they are free to do so. They are free to imagine whatever they like. Yes, in the nineteenth century, there was conservative attitude to control the intended meaning, but since then the work has been liberated. Actually most 'artists', are happy about that, and are more than happy to incorporate other individual's interpretations, that they would never have imagined. It then becomes more about the matrix, which is limitless, and less about the work and its creator. Also the work can be interpreted through many disparate disciplines. I'm not applying this to you, but its obvious some people are stuck in the nineteen century, and some people don't understand the subtelties of the English language.

 

I'm not talking about the 19th century.

I'm talking about the arts in general.  Believe it or not, there are composers who are still composing today.

 

People have always been free to imagine whatever they like about any art form, but that doesn't mean that the originator of that art doesn't have a specific meaning behind their creation.  Whether or not the individual artist cares about how others interpret it may depend on the artist and the work and the strength of the artist's feelings about the meaning behind their work.

 

I don't think that an unwillingness to deny what is obviously being said by the writers about the characters on this show (specifically, in this case, the couples pairings) has anything to do with anyone being stuck in the 19th century or failing to understand the subtleties of the English language.

I don't think that people who fantasize about the shenny are more modern in their interpretation of the show or more adept at the subtleites of the language.  What does that have to do with any aspect of who is interpreting, or how they're interpreting what is being said on the show and what isn't?

Understanding what is being said has nothing to do with fantasizing about a pairing that isn't being shown.

 

What I'm seeing is two different arguments about the shenny (or more, depending on the discussion at hand.)

A) The shenny is there, you just have to see it. (In other words, the writers are somehow secretly hinting at it, or the actors are secretly portraying it in the subtext--"Just look at the way they look at each other! Such love!!!")

B ) We're not saying there's any reality to the shenny, it's just our fantasy!  (Which directly contradicts the previous statement.)

 

But neither statement has anything to do with modern interpretation of art forms.  It's simply people having wishful thinking about something that isn't being written or portrayed onscreen in any way.

[Tensor]

It was a subtle substitution of words. Because I knew you lived in the USA.

LOL nice try. Your attempt at sidestepping your obvious error has nothing to do with the fact that the usage was wrong. Time zones, are a mathematical construct to keep local time (more properly local noon), more or less, even with the motion of the sun. They are not the same as time periods, which have nothing to do with the motion of the sun compared to local time. There's nothing subtle there, just a flat out error.

 

Start by reading 'The Open Work' by Umberto ECO.

Why bother? You pull out Eco, I can pull out any number of others (Iser, Jauss, Riffaterre, Fish (various interpretations of the Reader-Response school) or should we pull from the formalism school) who think that Eco's line of reasoning is silly and want to push their own ideas. My daughter majored in literary criticism. It's nothing but you say - I say. There is nothing to provide a consensus. Or, perhaps you believe that material is simply made without any meaning and letting the person experiencing to make it all up themselves.

Do you have any actually evidence that is unequivocal? Not that I expect any as you haven't provided any, you've just provided word games.

[gaqo]

And obviously this site is part of the matrix. The matrix grows as people add to it, bringing their own interpretations, understandings, and fantasies;( for example, with the question that started this thread). The only thing that restricts its growth, is blinkered people. But I'm starting to wonder why anyone would want to cauterize the matrix, what does this say about them? Maybe they are like a destructive virus, that needs to be expunged, so that the matrix can become limitless, and remain extant after the work has ceased to exist. Don't tell me I've made an error, all my words are deliberate. You're just pissed off because I claimed your arguements, seemed like those of a less wise person.

Edited June 4, 2013 by gaqo

[phantagrae]

And obviously this site is part of the matrix. The matrix grows as people add to it, bringing their own interpretations, understandings, and fantasies;( for example, with the question that started this thread). The only thing that restricts its growth, is blinkered people. But I'm starting to wonder why anyone would want to cauterize the matrix, what does this say about them? Maybe they are like a destructive virus, that needs to be expunged, so that the matrix can become limitless, and remain extant after the work has ceased to exist.

 

I'm sorry, but this is really ridiculous.

How do you know that your argument isn't the blinkered one?  I see what I see because I see it.  You see what you see because you want to see it (since what you claim to see or want to see has been refuted by everyone involved in the creation of this particular artwork.)  One could argue that you're not blinkered, but blindfolded, since what you claim to see or want to see isn't really there.

 

And the matrix is only inside your head because you need it to be in order to justify the sophistry of your conclusions.

 

If it's truly all just interpretation of the audience, as you claim, then no one can be "blinkered" because everyone's interpretation--including those who interpret it the way the creator intends it to be seen--is just as valid and "part of the matrix".

 

In trying to come up with some system to validate your (collective you) interpretation, you validate my (collective me) interpretation, so I cannot possibly be "blinkered" if you're not "blinkered."

Edited June 4, 2013 by phantagrae

[Tensor]

Don't tell me I've made an error, all my words are deliberate. You're just pissed off because I claimed your arguements, seemed like those of a less wise person.

Well, you don't provide evidence, just make assertions. That doesn't make me pissed, it just makes me laugh. And your deliberate choice doesn't mean your choice is right. In this case, it's simply wrong, not withstanding your claims otherwise. But, by all means, show us the definition of time zones is the same as time periods. You're just pissed because I've showed you're in error.

[BangerMain]

Gago,

 

Your point of view would be more understandable if you could show why your interpretation of TBBT "fantasies" is truer than that offered by the shows creators. You make statements as if they are facts that are intuitively obvious, such as Leonard is a transitional relationship for Penny. That's counter to not only what is shown on screen but also what has been said by the artists involved.

 

You do not use modifiers like, "in my humble opinion" or "I think this can be interpreted as". You make statements as if all should be able to see the ultimate truth with out further thought.

 

Maybe a little less certainty is in order.

Edited June 5, 2013 by BangerMain

[Martin Pollard]

"Don't attempt to interact with me again?" What arrogance! You're posting on a public forum. Anyone here can respond to anyone they like, and it's obvious that you're getting an assload of flack because of your arrogance and the pseudo-intellectual bullcrap you toss around. If you don't like it, then do something about your attitude, otherwise you're going to keep getting dumped on by people who don't like your attitude and aren't falling for your crap.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

[Tensor]

Look I come on this site to have friendly chat with like minded fans, and to have occasional intelligent conversations about topics in the series. I find most people have an interesting point of view, and it expands my knowledge by conversing with them. Interestingly, Tensor, Umberto Eco also puts forward a method of determining the useful content of a text. When I apply it to your posts. Well anyone reading them can see, they consist of petty snipes, ego tales about yourself, and as you even proved instantly, how you do not understand the subtelties of the English language. I am well aware of the meaning of 'time zones'. But it was obviously beyond you, that I was playing with words. I don't believe you are who you say you are. The age of the person in the photo, doesn't match the arguments and pettiness. Don't attempt to interact with me again, as clearly, you have absolutely nothing to say.

LOL, I've continued to ask you to provide evidence for your assertions, since you haven't provided any evidence, you seem to be the one with nothing to say. Whether you believe who I am isn't a problem of mine. I've been posting on various forums going back to Fidonet. Besides, other here have seen pictures of me, doing plays, taken by others. Again showing your powers of observation less than someone who claims they can figure out someones post content. Interestingly, I'm not the only one calling you out on the arrogance, name calling and lack of content of your posts. As far as the content of my posts, again, you've made an assertion, without providing any evidence that your assertion has any merit. It humors me to see you flail around.

[Tripper]

Let's all keep it civil folks.

[Nogravitasatall]

It just occurred to me that some of these discussions are like arguing over the merits of cats vs dogs vs dogapuss.

sorry, just whimsy.