[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ya-Ya or yada yada
hey steve and list,
don't be alarmed: i can't spell. it's the only
disclaimer i'm offering tonight :)
> I was going to reply to you alone since I have
> gotten a number of angry e-mails from listies who
> don't like their boxes filled with crap they don't
> care about,
such as everything we've posted as a list lately? i
hope those angry people don't turn out to be
hypocrites participating lately--and i hope they
reprimanded _all_ the rest of us for the sake of
consistency. whatever.
hmm. you don't like, scroll down. the subject
heading is there. i have no niceties to go with such
comments anymore. they were exhausted long ago.
anyway, there are plenty of academic types around,
many who lurk, who might be interested in this
discussion.
> Again, what skill is used to pass this on to the
> audience. The art is the whole point otherwise one
> might as well just be sat down and told, "Life Suck.
> Sometimes parents do things wrong even though they
> love you because they are only human themselves."
> What fun would that be?
:)
sometimes that's what we need.
but i do agree--the more artful, the more deep, the
stronger my general attraction to it. i have a
feeling i wouldn't have enjoyed the film as much had i
gone in with such esteem for and experience with the
book.
> I don't think it is the viewer's fault. I believe
> the whole film from trailer to end credits is
> packaged as almost a fantasy. It lacks the ability
> to show that it is rooted in a stark reality.
fair enough. i guess it would be like reading
flannery and then making a good-time film from one of
her novels.
> You should really get out more then.
hey, make some recommendations, for the love of all
that is holy :) i get out plenty, but i don't see
many movies that provoke the laughing _and_ crying.
> because they were real, but they were funny because
> they were absurd. While there is nothing wrong with
> absurd humor, but this is something that alters the
> central vision of the artist.
unless you're in love with hispanic literature, old to
new...:) i tend to like the absurd.
> point as well as a section on the "chick flick" In
> addition to this the are a number of feminist
> critics and supporter to the genre including Laura
> Mulvey and bell hooks who talk about film's general
now which schools would they claim? :) are they down
with elaine showalter stuff? maybe gail shehe (sp?)?
gynobabblers by any chance? :)
i remember hearing jane radway give a talk at fsu
about what young girls read and its relationship to
their identities. interesting stuff. she really gets
into the more underground grrrl culture too. i was
there doing research for a sociolinguistics project on
academic questions. oh well.
> done. True "chick flicks" do work on these levels,
> but you have to then ask yourself, "Why?" Why do
> these fanatasies appeal to women everywhere, and do
> they appeal to women everwhere?
i don't think that they do appeal to women everywhere,
but it seems like they appeal to a lot of us.
in a messed up world we have unhealthy relationships
with expectations based on shallow interpretations of
problems and justification-based band-aids that don't
heal a darn thing. it's called the "me" world. it's
a nice humanist problem. it's the selfish worldview
that propegates self-preservation and doesn't serve
anything or anyone else.
> some sort of need that is fulfilled by the film for
> the viewer. What do these narratives tell the
> viewer about the world around them? How should she
> solve her problems? Especially relational ones?
see this is where i walk away from anything a film or
show would offer and make the concerted effort to
think about it but not just stop there. i think
you're right in that the media is indicative of all
sorts of things. but in terms of solutions, i can't
sit idly by and work from it would offer.
they're pretty crappy most often (at least according
to the things i value most). oh i'm rachel from
"friends," my bio clock is ticking which makes me feel
bad. unfortunately, i'm not married. but i'll have
one anyway so i fix the tick of that clock. pretty
simple.
along a similar vein, i saw this episode of "touched
by an angel" that ticked me off too. woman over 40.
she _really_ wants a baby, but if she gets pregnant
there are very high risks. she and her husband go
along, but when it's discovered that the baby will be
born with downes (sp?), he wants an abortion. in the
end, it's her motivation to have a baby b/c of her bio
clock (which is on the surface but sleeps with the
emptiness in her life) that saves the sweet bebe and
not a general motivation to deliver into the world
that which they took the risk to believe for and
ultimately give their lives for. anyway. i know my
views are different from many, but even though i'd go
"whew, she didn't abort" i still think it was for very
selfish reasons.
while they may be "products" of culture, i wouldn't
give them such a strong agency in calling them
"producers" of culture.
i don't think it's that concerted an effort or
intention. if we are indeed unaware of just how
deeply interlaced we are in such narratives, the
strong initiative couldn't be there by the other
average human participants involved, supposedly
running this circus.
if we're attributing such "effect" status to a
pervasion of socially constructed values and
identities, then shouldn't we blame all the facets
and/or sources of the culture rather than the modes
through which they come? the base vessels, products
and producers alike if i understand you well are
_actively_ involved in a subconscious trance of some
voodoo entrapping all of our deceived and/or inactive
population? of which they too are apart? huh?
> I think that the majority would pursue depth if they
> did not consider it stigmatized.
stigmatized by whom and for what reason? i think that
might be key.
> students films of great depth, and trust me that
> these kids are far from brains, and they really do
> react to the depth of a well-crafted film or
> narrative in a way that is far superior to the
> momentary joy that might be gotten from "CRossroads"
but they are young and in a position of consuming
what's laid before them. eventually they have to make
a decision or two. those who are a generation ahead
were presumably in that position once too. but they
haven't spawned an enlightened group to take their
place and love all that is supposedly deep. why is
that? some might say cynicism. others might look at
other possibilities too. why do so many trade the
vast expanse of information and liberal mindsets for a
more linear path?
i think putting money where mouths are often separates
out the major decisions as we consider so much. it
helps us take a harsh look at the reality we are
trying to uncover (via journey, story/narrative) and
decide to go in a direction. that, in turn, informs
other decisions and actions. that direction is what
we believe at that time. perhaps the realizations of
what we encounter on one path or another have us
chosing later rather shrewdly (maybe even
conservatively) for another path based on what the
path actually reveals in the day to day walking of
it--and what is beheld at peak points.
> The problem is that they the culture that they
> engage in dictates the culture that they engage in,
but who is dictating behind the mask of "culture?" if
it's just opportunists, we're calling the majority of
ourselves stupid.
> and until the masses realize that they don't have to
> dwell on the superficial, then they will wallow in
> the mud and consider their porcine selves to be
> kings.
i wish i believed that. for some that might be true.
but, just as you said, i should (and do in a general
sense) take great pleasure in trying to "open people's
eyes;" but i wonder if i do so with a blinded sort of
pride.
i keep learning that a lot of these ignorant people
have seen much more of life and of the world and have
chosen paths that don't seem "logical" to me and my
academic idealism. maybe they know something i do not
yet know? maybe they are participating in "reality"
on a level i do not yet understand (as a choice,
casting aside what i consider revelation for yet
another).
> We must instruct the consumer and producer alike.
who's "we?" is that something we could ever mostly
agree on even? if it's the academy, they don't get
close enough to or hang out with the consumer and/or
producers. i think they (academicians) hardly know
who they (c & p) are or what they mean :) towers are
limiting.
> is the role of discernment. The corporate producers
> are continually telling every demographic with
> growing accuracy what they must be like and what
> they must do to remain ther or improve their lot.
with what information or motivation are they
instructing these demographics? with the way most
postmodernists would work out defining culture, with
by and to whom it's transmitted (and maybe you? from a
few things you've said), these "statements" aren't
didactic, they're only descriptive.
> be angry with an industrialist that forced products
> that are potentially harmful to the user and
> society?
no one forces me to buy or sit through brainwashing
movies, magazines etc. god bless the usa ;-}
> We are mad at tobacco and alcohol for
> targetting kids.
poor relational examples are to be found everywhere.
should we sue every parent who does a poor job too?
and every camara company selling equipment to shoot a
"bad" movie? why not also sue the locations that
permit footage to be shot in them. and what about the
real life examples from which many characters are
inspired? where does it stop?
regarding harmful substances to the body, there is an
age limit. same with movies regarding their content.
as a society we've been able to assess the physical
damage done by some substances. and there are studies
linking violence and sex and kids' actions.
but do we have a fine-enough toothed comb to
legitimize or villify the most basic levels of
relational models and character traits? hey, you
and/or i may have very definite views on such things
and hope to influence people, but i doubt we'd want to
sack freedom and take a seat on our farce of an
all-knowing, all-seeing thrown of judgment. it makes
me think of what gandalf says to frodo in "fellowhip
of the ring" when frodo makes the comment about pity
and bilbo not killing gollum.
as a society we have a hard time figuring out what's
morally okay across the board. we don't legislate
personal morality all that much--that is the way it is
with the system we have. churchill said "democracy is
a terrible form of government, but consider the
alternatives."
> the cultural environment. I'm not talking about
> violence or sex on TV or in music or in movies.
> These are merely symptoms of a deeper disregard for
> the effect that ones work has on the community.
i think they are deeper too, but so must their source
and solution be.
> Well good for you, but you should now have the
> feeling of obligation to instruct all of those
> around you in what you have learned.
what i have "learned?" oh my. on the upside, what i
learned was how better to think more analytically.
what i learned even before is that not everything in
print is true or anywhere near "fact."
i also learned (or rather discovered) that not every
critique of conservative ideology is sound. i
especially learned that there's a lot of bitching and
moaning in academia.
i think i came away with more "non-examples" than
"examples," if you catch my meaning. before i walked
into a deeper life of study, i had a desire to
question the system and not just trust the
establishment. it was a fervent desire for equality
among people and fair searches into ideas that i
_wasn't_ brought up with that led me to study in the
first place. the openess and realization of many
wrongs fed to us is what led me to go deeper.
but there is just as much hegemony in their camp as
there is abroad in the darker corners of barbarism.
there are just as many pedestals to come crashing down
in the realm of enlightened scholarship as there are
in the realm of supposed crude ignorance.
while i still maintain a hopeful heart to search and
learn, i don't have much confidence in the hubs of
higher education and their hardly-revolutionary
propaganda. they kiss as much ass as anyone else.
probably more.
that doesn't mean i won't go back for a phd. but a
thick veil was lifted in my masters experience. it
hurt, but i think it was for the best. maybe i was
wearing a dirty band-aid for a long time.
> How do you mean? Sure feminists seem to complain
> about everything, and I think that organized
> feminism, much like the organized church, very often
> misses the point. Still, I think there is a problem
> with something that appeals to women as strongly as
> "chick flicks" that seems to provide a solution
> while at the same time solving nothing.
that's my point with a lot of feminism. ever read
george orwell's "animal farm"? ever notice how the
pigs become like the master they hated? interesting
phenomenon. i know that's a gross
over-simplification, but it's one of the things that
irks me. most of the critism ostracizes men and most
women instead of doing as you say--looking deeply for
a solution. we're all still here. what do they
propose, drown the majority? kill us off? most
liberal studies are very me-oriented and don't reach
beyond.
they can't do it b/c a major mantra has to do with the
hypocritical absolutist statement that there is no
absolute truth or standard. since nothing can apply
to us all, i can only work from me, myself and i. so
i'll spend a lifetime devoting my life to that :)
justifying it as much as defining it.
> of their own nature as characters who are doomed to
> make the same mistakes again and again.
i agree with this assessment, but expecting chick
flicks to evolve is like thinking, as a christian,
that the world will be perfected before christ comes
back. as a society, i don't deny that we've
"progressed" in many ways; but we often make terrible
compromises to go towards supposed enlightenment.
some may not have been worth it. i guess we'll know
someday. i think about c.s. lewis' "till we have
faces" as a good reflection of that worry.
[re: rebecca wells' responsibility to her readers]
> I think she has to some extent taken that
> responsibility onto herself whether she wants it or
> not because this is the framework of her story.She
> is not writing a "How to" book, but she is depicting
> a "map of reality" through her writing that the
> readers learn from.
she's depicting a version of the map. from her
perspective. she's only a filter of reality. and
she's different than you are. i'm not a pluralist or
a relativist...but lets put together all the versions
we can find of the map and from the imprint of it on
our hearts and conscience (and the lay of the land we
can see and experience) and do the best we can to find
the treasure.
> They take her "map" and compare
> it to theirs.
but what if she's coming from the north, and they/you
happen to be trekking east towards the destination?
shouldn't that be taken into account? i think
metacognition is important b/c of such issues.
> They don't necessarily accept it
> blindly, but there is an interaction on some
> fundamental level otherwise the book would hold no
> interest.
what if a writer were illustrating with a non-example
instead of an example? what if a person not
intelligent enough to know the difference ruins
his/her life supposedly based on that narrative? are
we still blaming the writer?
when giving a narrative, we are trying to construct or
reconstruct things (from my sociolinguistic
perspective). do we leave out the bad and the ugly?
or does it serve something deeper to leave it in? is
my narrative truly prescriptive in all its parts? oh
i hope not :) 'cause i've messed up a lot. i'm glad
that my story is not over yet.
> I think that you are missing the point. Everyone
> gets information on the world from a variety of
> sources.
yes, and the import or credence given to each source
might vary.
> Sure, because I see "Fight CLub" I am not
> going to go out and start one in my basement, but
> there is some connection between me and the
> character where I recognize his feelings within
> myself or the potential of these feelings. This is
> the very nature of narrative within a society.
and what is it within you that makes a decision for or
against the behavior of the character of such a film?
you are obviously dealing with the feelings...but what
of the relationship with actions? i'm thinking carl
jung now.
> might not think that you are redefining your world
> because you go see a movie, and you might not be
> given a single film...
i recognize the power of influence. but the
negotiation ever-present in such subtle interaction is
a series of choices (whatever that means: that's for
peter and ryan :) to figure out for us).
> but if you see lots of movies,
> TV shows, music, ads, conversations, etc then this
> can build up to a surprising degree to define who we
> are.
so we desensitize ourselves beyond remedy? isn't that
a choice (actually a series of them)--the seering of
our conscience? is it just a freakish consequence of
the information age? are we doomed to destruction b/c
of our own lack of agency?
> What terms can you use to tell other about what you
> stand for? How did you learn those values?
from many sources, granted. but there came a point
(and these points will continue to come) where i said,
"nah, i don't believe what my g'pa said all those
years...etc." or "yeah, my professor was right."
> who taught them to you? How do you choose friends?
> Mates? Lovers? What is desirable? These things are
> all defined by some sort of cultural interaction as
> we grow up whether it is parents, friends, clergy,
> etc.
and i don't think the people you mentioned are on the
same contributing level as a movie or book. and
shoot, if only i'd follow the models set forth there
and in the lives of people i know--i'd certainly make
my mom happy :) if only i'd follow the models right
in front of me :)
she says i'm too analytical about all of that ("the
effects of education" to bring jane austen into
this--but i was curious and challenging before i
worked on tools of analysis). she thinks that my
thoughts on friendship and mates are too
discriminating. that's her assessment since i'm still
not hitched and already a wopping 25 <gasp>.
so in my ever wandering heart and interest in
intellectual and/or spiritual things, i have made some
of my own choices, while informed in many ways by a
myriad of influences, may not depend "all or nothing"
on them :) certainly not on a media child. even
though i disagree with my mom on a number of things, i
listen more to her than to a song or movie.
what i take away from my mother and father (so far)
isn't how to look for a partner in life ('cause i
don't buy into all their ideas that way): it's that
you can stick with that partner even when feelings are
NOT bubbling up in your tummy and keep a commitment.
i didn't learn that from a two-hour film.
i choose to take that (and some other things) away
from their example--not necessarily all the other
stuff :)
> > identification and look for it :) i don't just
> > swallow it and say "mmmmmm."
>
> No one does, or at least the vast majority of
> audiences don't.
so how are so many sub/unconsciously taken over with
harmful ideology? even if it does come in small
doses? in a capitalist society like ours, right?
> That is their intrinsic power.
> Sometimes narratives are most powerful when we think
> them through. I am not saying that this whole
> process is bad. I am just saying that there is no
> way for you or anyone in today's society to think
> through every cultural map that is thrown at us.
i do agree with you on this one. i'm sure i'll go
untangling for as long as i live. but my life's
contributions to culture as a supposed producer
already as i teach classes is probably not a great
deal clearer than my role as a receiver.
there are things i present very intentionally, and
there are others i don't that are transmitted anyway.
just ask my students. i love to listen to them size
me up and describe our classroom environment.
sometimes i chuckle and other times i'm in awe of how
powerful the small, unintentional things are.
but i don't have the time or capacity to direct and
understand them all. i would _do_ nothing if i sat to
entertain them all. i have certain beliefs, and it's
more generally "who" i am that pervades, even in the
minutia of actions and words.
if the fruit is not indicative of what i think or say
i believe, i usually go back and find that maybe i
don't really believe that thing :) or maybe not yet.
maybe i'm still testing or toying with it.
> conscious thought. Their power comes in our
> assumptions as to how films should work.
but where do _those_ come from??? :) what a web, no?
> that you go through consciously at times and
> consider their effects shows merely that you were
> conditioned by different cultural factors than
> others.
i can't say "merely." which cultural factors? my
family has always thought me an anomaly. why, when i
was little, was i asking questions day and night and
my sister not? an average scene: i was content to sit
and stare at the hot burner, thinking intently and
leslie had to touch it immediately (maybe lick
it)--more than once too (regardless of warnings)...i'd
stand next to a wall and look at it, maybe touch it an
think about the texture; and leslie would throw her
body against it. my sister was quite a character. :)
> What makes you consider this process
> important? This in and of itself is a cultural
> indicator at many small forces at work.
i think you are right, but i think they are combined
with personality that is intrinsic in individuals as
well as evaluative capabilities for those with the
courage to try.
> of their main cultural influences inform them over
> time that these disparities from reality are to be
> desired. Just look at the evolution of body image
> in men and women for the smallest example.
are you talking about piercings/tattoos and/or trends
towards androgeny? that's when i go back to the
numbness associated with seering of consciences etc.
the great desire to feel _something_ and yet sadly
believe that there's nothing.
i think culture is transmitted and that we have to pay
attention. but ultimately i think it comes from
worldviews which stem from basic beliefs and beget
decisions. maybe it's a vicious cycle.
> It is merely the academics
> that we encounter through the media that do this,
i wasn't thinking of them at all :) i see a bandwagon
ahead of the normal professors. _anything_ in the
amazing quest to undermind any and all authority (for
the sake of) :) let's marginalize anyone who is not
yet marginalized. subalterns speaking who can't
really? rigoberta menchu translated by a wealthy
venezuelan. elizabeth burgos--oh yeah, she's an
authentic filter for a guatemalan indigenous woman.
interesting. the most ardent of socialist professors
are funded by (and basically only in) capitalist
systems. hmmm.
create the cannon 'cause there has to be some standard
to test graduate students when comps/prelims come
around but condemn it in every class you give, never
covering the texts on its lists. it's quite a mixed
bag.
> The rest really focus on what interests them because
> surprisingly enough If one person goes through
> school and become fascinated with a topic of study,
> then probability dictates that others will share
> that interest.
i think it does start that way, but it comes down to
using all the right jargon in an article to get it
published (and the prestige that follows) even if it's
ridiculous or says nothing. money is only one part of
that system. i probably shouldn't have boiled it down
only to money.
They will have differing viewpoints,
> but the fact remains that the interest is there
> especially in the study of cultural issues.
i'm all for digging there. but i'm interested in
balance, and i don't think many academics go for it
with an openess to the vast array of perspectives and
evidence. i think they are quicker to build a case
for their own beliefs/lifestyles (which all
have...peel back any case or set of proofs and you
will find a level of faith in a plausibility structure
or set of assumptions).
> In order to do
> this, the film or joke must relate to your
> experience of the world culturally otherwise
but interaction doesn't necessarily mean mirror
imaging or the temptation to imitate what i would see
there.
> Sure, I think that this is the older generation's
> responsibility, but what else is entertainment and
> art other than a segment of the culture
a segment, not an active, thinking, responding
participant in it. it's two-dimentional if we are
three. it's a picture. i'm a person.
take care,
j. marie
=====
All human nature vigorously resists grace because grace changes us and the change is painful. -Flannery O'Connor
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/