lirazel | 16-year-old!Lauren was a snob. 24-year-old!Lauren knows better

Current Mood: frustrated

Entry tags:

16-year-old!Lauren was a snob. 24-year-old!Lauren knows better

Do you think that back in the day when humans first developed writing, there were some pretentious pseudo-intellectual snobs sitting around going, “Writing? Oh, I don’t use writing. I prefer the oral tradition—it’s so much more pure.” Or during the time of Gutenburg, he had friends rolling his eyes telling him that printed books were for the unwashed masses who couldn’t be bothered to unlock the secrets of the meaning of life through the use of hand-written texts? Did our great-great-grandparents expect to be praised for eschewing radio?

Because, I’m sorry: I am not at all impressed by people who are too good for television.

Yes, there are connections between a medium and the work created in that medium. There are some things that are so deeply tied to their medium that the idea of separating them is ridiculous—movies of Faulkner’s more complicated novels tend to be awful because the narrative form and the language he uses is so tied to what he’s trying to communicate and the filmmakers aren't innovative enough to try to play to film's strengths to communicate those ideas instead. A novelized version of The Fall wouldn’t be nearly as powerful as the film, and it certainly wouldn’t be able to communicate the same ideas about the nature of film and storytelling as the movie does. There are strengths and weaknesses to each medium—there are some stories that will be stronger in when depicted visually—in film, theater, or television—and others that are more suited to text. And there are some that have different things to say in each medium, and isn’t that cool? (No, the book isn’t always better than the movie, you’re just more used to one than the other. The Godfather is a better movie. It’s okay. You can admit it.)

But the idea that one medium is inherently better than another is so ridiculous that I can’t take people who feel this way seriously. I have to laugh because a lot of the people I know who think they’re too good for television are huge film buffs, and they don’t see the hypocrisy at all.

[All of this snobbery is not unrelated to the idea of “literary” fiction versus “genre” fiction. Just because you’re writing in a realistic style about a middle-aged New England professor going through a midlife crisis and lusting after one of his students with an ambiguous ending and a general mood of malaise doesn’t mean that your story’s going to be better than a Western or a romance or a sci-fi novel. SCREW. YOU. for thinking so.]

You know that law that says that 90% of everything is crap? It’s true. It’s true of published books. It’s true of television shows. Goodness knows it’s true of fanfiction. And let me repeat: it’s true of television. I am not defending the mindless crap. I’m not defending bad reality shows, daytime talk shows, those endless 24 news channels that have no sense of priorities and are really made up of people yelling at each other and not listening and so they don’t further the political discussion at all. I'm definitely not defending Two and a Half Men. There is so much junk on TV, it’s not even funny.

But there are also powerful shows. Important shows. Funny ones and delightful ones and beautiful ones and moving ones. The odds of you happening on one if you just randomly turn on the tube now and then are pretty low, but they are there. They are worth it. They’re just as much art as Bergman film or a Dostoevsky novel. And we’re really moving into the golden age of television, where show runners are figuring out things like continuity and the importance of character arcs. It’s excellent, and my to-watch list is always long, and I’ll never catch up on everything, and I love it.

So, person who told me in that self-satisfied voice “Oh, I don’t watch TV,” as though you were talking about that area of town you’d never set foot in: oh, yeah, I really think so highly of you because you’ve made the decision not to allow The Wire or Parks and Recreation or Nova or something into your life. Go ahead. Bask in your own superiority. I’m going to watch the first season of Justified.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Word to all of this. I really hate when people get that tone about anything and act superior because they do this and this when you don't. Or vice versa.

Justified! \O/

I don't mind someone saying that something is better than something else or that it has more value for more people. It's when they make sweeping statements or judge other people who have different taste that I get mad. Really mad.

*sigh*

Exactly. We've already discussed stereotypes and this type of broad sweeping generalizations just go hand in hand. And judging people for their tastes in things is never okay for me.

Are you liking Justified?

I've only just watched the pilot, but I enjoyed it. Rocket launchers! I'll get back to you when I've seen more episodes.

Ughh, Boyd, my favorite.

Do that! I love that it's a show set in the South that gets it. Like, it doesn't make fun of Kentucky, it just is what it is.

I agree with all of this and I kind of love you for posting it. I think most people around fandom would agree, but I know so many people in RL who spend all their evenings at ~experimental plays~ in obscure theatre halls and look down on someone who might prefer to stay home and watch, idk, Mad Men. Or, god forbid, a Sci-Fi show.

And I REALLY need to see The Fall.

but I know so many people in RL who spend all their evenings at ~experimental plays~ in obscure theatre halls and look down on someone who might prefer to stay home and watch, idk, Mad Men. Or, god forbid, a Sci-Fi show.

Oh, I know. I as an English major, and there was so much of this going on in the department. I liked to think of myself as a sort of ambassador for good television, but it's such a pretentious thing.

Watch it! Watch it watch it watch it! :D

Amen. There's nothing noble or intellectually superior about cutting yourself off from the culture surrounding you.

Also, yay Justified! :)

There's nothing noble or intellectually superior about cutting yourself off from the culture surrounding you.

So very, very well said.

I just watched the pilot last night and went and downloaded the rest of the first season. I'm super excited!

PREACH.

This is why I hate Johnny Depp. Because he is so fucking superior about the fact that he doesn't watch TV or even movies. HOW IS THAT SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF? You're an actor. That is your craft--and TV and movies are your medium--you aren't a stage actor, dude. That's just plain unprofessional to not keep abreast of what's going on in your field.

But anyway. I agree with everything. (Well... except for magical realism being the same as fantasy. But that's not important.)

And you're right--it is related to the genre fiction vs. literary fiction division. And, I'll admit--that's something I have a hard time with. Those are difficult waters to navigate--because I think there's an enormous amount of value in genre fiction--and I think there's plenty of genre stuff that could be marketed as literary fiction. But, somewhere in there, there's a difference--and I don't think it's just my snobbery speaking. It's hard to put your finger on--but I always remember the arguments people would make in middle school, that Stephen King will be taught in literature classes in 100 years. And... well.... no. He won't be. Unless it's a class on popular genre fiction of the 20th century.

Now, Terry Pratchett? Yes. Neil Gaiman? Yes. And there're probably a jillion more that I don't know of.

Stephen King would be like Vampire Diaries--well written, well plotted--but not really innovative. Good, not great. Pratchett would be more like Buffy. Innovative. Genre busting. There's value in both. And one isn't MORE valuable than the other--but they aren't interchangeable either.

And I think that's exactly what the situation is with mediums as well--different mediums CAN'T replace each other. There are things TV can do that no other medium can do (long term character development couched in visual metaphors and whatnot), just as there are things that books and movies and comics and poetry and visual art can do that other mediums can't. We need them all--to dismiss a genre or a medium out of hand is just... snobbery, yes. But more than that, it's sophomoric. It's a false sophistication that really reveals how little the dismisser has thought about the nature of art and communication. It's... not the best way to impress anyone who actually has given a good amount of thought to those things.

Oh, I don't think magical realism is the same as fantasy, but there is quite a bit of overlap, enough that setting up one as valuable and the other as drivel is ridiculous. You know?

Oh, go away Johnny Depp. You seem incapable of picking good movies to be in of late anyway.

Stephen King would be like Vampire Diaries--well written, well plotted--but not really innovative. Good, not great. Pratchett would be more like Buffy. Innovative. Genre busting. There's value in both. And one isn't MORE valuable than the other--but they aren't interchangeable either.

Agreed. Definitely. Probably people will still be reading King then, but in lit classes? That's a different question.

I think there's something to be said for the way that genre fiction is often the domain of women, as well--the inherent kyriarchy reflected in the canon: how sexist and classist and racist, etc. it is. But that's an entirely different issue as well. I won't go there now.

There are things TV can do that no other medium can do (long term character development couched in visual metaphors and whatnot), just as there are things that books and movies and comics and poetry and visual art can do that other mediums can't. We need them all--to dismiss a genre or a medium out of hand is just... snobbery, yes. But more than that, it's sophomoric. It's a false sophistication that really reveals how little the dismisser has thought about the nature of art and communication.

YES. YES YES YES YES YES YES. This is exactly what I was trying to get at.

I don't think magical realism is the same as fantasy, but there is quite a bit of overlap, enough that setting up one as valuable and the other as drivel is ridiculous. You know?

Ah. I see what you're saying.

You know, what's interesting about this is that one reason that magical realism is so lauded has to do with post-colonialism and academia's reaction to undervaluing the storytelling methods of colonized people. The reclamation of folk methods and combining them with the storytelling techniques of the empire is one of the things that sets it apart from fantasy--which tends to have its roots set strongly within the bounds of the empire itself. So, it seems almost reactionary and self-hating of academia/the West's literati, you know? Valuing the *exotic* method, and demeaning the accessible? Interesting.

I guess I've just read some books by colonized people that were indeed marketed as fantasy as opposed to magical realism, and, on the other hand, I've seen some very Western works labeled as magical realism, so perhaps I've just seen mislabeling. It's certainly possible.

Anyway, Valuing the *exotic* method, and demeaning the accessible? Interesting.

This is an interesting idea. I'm not educated enough to know if it's the case, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was some of this going on--sort of turning those writers into the Magical Negroes of the literary world?

Well, I don't know if it's mislabeling necessarily. At this point, magical realism isn't confined to colonized people--that's just where it started. I think it was Garcia Marquez that coined the term--and the technique is most notably used by South and Latin American writers. But then it spread to India (the term--not the style--the style was already present), and then the technique sort of started appearing in literary fiction all over the place. For some reason I can't think of any stuff from the US or UK off the top of my head that I'd call magical realism. But I do think of the movie Amelie. OH! And LA Story! LA Story is the perfect example, actually. That's magical realism done by a a white dude. It's like isolated unexplainable (magical) incidents that are treated by the story (and often the characters as well) as completely normal--all taking place in the completely knowable, real world. So, everything's normal and then one day a traffic sign starts talking to you. Or everything's normal, and then the boy who lives a few houses over gets carried away by butterflies and never returns. And the normal stuff just continues on.

Fantasy is like, whole other make believe world. Or it can be in this world, but with circumstances completely altering it--ie, vampires live among humans or something happened and the world is completely flooded.

So I don't know if the books you're thinking of were marketed in a particular way that might not have been true to them... but that's sort of how I distinguish those genres.

I know when most people think magical realism, they do think Latin America, of course. That's what I mostly associate it with. As for North America, Sherman Alexie writes magical realism, but he's hardly part of the Western hegemony (being Native and so part of the colonized world).

It's like isolated unexplainable (magical) incidents that are treated by the story (and often the characters as well) as completely normal--all taking place in the completely knowable, real world.

I'm just saying, I've read fantasy novels that would meet all of those qualifications. I just think that the lines between the two are not always distinct, you know? And definitely not enough for one to be valuable and the other worthless.

Edited 2011-05-12 20:24 (UTC)

Yeah. I know. I haven't read much fantasy, to be honest, so I was just trying to suss out whether you thought the books you were thinking of would fit in well with those sort of widely accepted as magical realism--or if there's something that quintessentially sets them apart. Sorry. I didn't mean to give a lecture series. I just get overexcited when I get to talk about post-colonialism. Also, it should be noted that I work in the publishing industry--so I have sort of an ingrained sense of trust of their labels that probably is unfounded. I should probably question it more--I just haven't read enough fantasy to really do it well, I think.

And yes! Sherman Alexie! ♥

No, it's totally fine! It's something you have more knowledge of, clearly. I just read a loooot of fantasy, so I don't think it's surprising that I've come across more fantasy of that type than you have.

Plus, I have an inherent distrust for genre labels. Because if a "literary" writer writes a straight-up fantasy or sci-fi novel (and this happens), their book is still shelved in the literary section, like it's too good for genre. I don't know. I have issues.

I will always be happy for you to ramble about post-colonialism at any time. Just so you know. :D

Sherman Alexie is wonderful. At everything. Did you see him on Colbert that one time? GLORIOUS.

Could not agree more. Sure I know what people mean when they claim tv/the internet/computergames/whatever turns people into idiots. But those things are media and it's what you transport that defines the quality of a product not the medium itself. There are books, plays and operas that mindnumbingly stupid, yet there are computergames that are pure pieces of art.

You have to be critical with the content not generalize the medium that transports it.

Exactly! And I know that TV/movies don't exercise your empathy the way that books do (which makes sense), but I'm sure they speak to a separate part of your brain in some other way. Every medium has its value.

And of course we need moderation. I'd never argue for sitting in front of the TV all day mindlessly absorbing. But television watching is dynamic for me in a similar way that any other art is. It can be. And it's given me a lot.

They can bask in their superiority; we're going to have a good time actually talking about and doing stuff over here ;)

I don't come across this attitude as much as I used to but when I do, I get this weird feeling of "well, she's watching tv, she's clearly not as ~smart as we thought" or something. Which... LJ has really had my back on because we are teenagers, we are college students, we are the unemployed and the employed and the professors and the professionals.

We are, y'all. And we're here to stay.

I think this attitude is getting sort of phased out, thankfully, but I still stumble across it sometimes, and I roll my eyes so hard it's a wonder they don't fall out.

Amen! :D

I have this argument with my film snob brother who thinks tv peaked with The Hulk series and Star Trek on a nearly weekly basis. It's just so silly. Television has been in the midst of a renaissance since the now mythical 2004 season and while I think network television hit a bit of slump this year (the crop of shows from the last development season were largely disappointing, I think, although things like Happy Endings and Terriers more than made up for the Criminal Minds spin offs and such), I feel confident that they're swinging for the fences again this year if the pilot descriptions are any indications.

It sucks that some people are going to miss out so many amazing series because they're dismissing an entire medium. I firmly believe it's possible to enjoy books and movies and television and a whole plethora of other things all at once.

Anyway, awesome post is awesome. :)

It sucks that some people are going to miss out so many amazing series because they're dismissing an entire medium. I firmly believe it's possible to enjoy books and movies and television and a whole plethora of other things all at once.

I could not agree more. And it makes me sad when I know the person, and I know which shows they would like, and I tell them, and they turn their nose up at it. You're missing out, buddy! I know you would enjoy this!

Thanks! :D

Word to all of this.

I wanted to share the link to your post on my Facebook, since you said all I've wanted to say to all the "I don't watch TV" snobs... until I realized your posts have restricted access.

:D

I don't have this f-locked. I may have anonymous commenting turned off (I don't even remember), but it should be visible to anyone.

My bad - I've checked my FB profile and it works. It's only showing inaccessible when you 'like' the link, not when you share it!

Aha! I was super confused--I wondered if it was showing up locked to you and not to me. Good to know that it's open!

F'REALS. When I went back home for winter break, I told my mom that I'd successfully gotten a friend hooked on Veronica Mars, and her response was "Is that all you do? Watch TV?" And a few months later she said that the reason why she's always keeping up with events at my college and telling me what I should go to is because the only thing I'd do if she didn't tell me how to spend my time, according to her? Go on the computer. RAGEFACE.

Ugh. I am sorry. That sucks. I think a lot of people view TV as a very passive activity, and maybe for the average viewer it is. But it certainly isn't if you're of the fannish persuasion--we take it seriously, we turn things over in our heads, we write fic and meta about them, we create. It's not just flipping on the TV and flipping off our brains, you know?

My sister teases me about my computer being my social life, so you know I hear you.

Right? It's like none of it could possibly be valid. And when I said that I do actually hang out with my friends, she was like "Who also just go on the computer the whole time." Like if I'm at college and not using my free time for college-sponsored thing, then I must just be wasting my time there. :|||||||||||| SHUT UP I AM ENGAGING WITH FICTION BOTH IRL AND ON THE INTERNET WHICH I THINK IS MORE "ENRICHING" THAN ME GOING TO RANDOM EVENTS THAT MIGHT BE FUN BUT I GENERALLY WON'T STILL BE THINKING ABOUT THE NEXT WEEK.

...cough. That may have just, y'know, slipped out. /lolololol parental issues

It happens. *sigh*

Is your mom more extroverted? I've found that the more extroverted people are the ones that think only certain ways of interacting are valid. It's because they seriously don't understand why you wouldn't want to be out! with people! all the time! Not all extroverts, obviously, but they're the ones who Don't Get It.

I think you win at life. So there.

Yay! blackfrancine mentioned Terry Pratchett! Last week I was having an email conversation with the writer of a fanfic I had reviewed. We were talking books and when I said that he was one of my favourite writers I could hear the disparaging tone in her email when she wrote 'TP? Really?' Just because we had been talking about more high-falutin' 'literature'.

As if the fact that I read those means I should not enjoy something more 'populist'. I tried to explain to her that TP is vastly underrated by literary snobs and he has so much to say about what it means to be human. Even if it is through the medium of comic fantasy, he taps into the important truths of our existence and his stories are morality tales of great heart and substance. And hey, even if that were not true, his books are funny,charming and well written. What's not to love?

Then, yesterday, I was discussing an arty French movie I love with someone else, and that led to me saying that BtVS is my fav tv show of all time and probably means more to me than any film, much as I love movies. Again, the raised eyebrow and the patronising smile. I could see her mentally lowering her estimate of my IQ.
You know what, these so-called 'deep' types are the shallow ones. Because they can't go below the surface and see all that Buffy had to teach and show us.

Yeah, I get that sort of thing all the time, too. The fact that I love a lot of the classics and that I also read lots of YA fantasy confuses people. A lot. But people are complex! It's okay!

You know what, these so-called 'deep' types are the shallow ones. Because they can't go below the surface and see all that Buffy had to teach and show us.

Totally agreed.

I WOULD LIKE TO MARRY THIS POST. ♥ Sometimes I like to think about writers from bygone eras watching TV, because I think it would just strike them as so amazing. Specifically, one that always gets me (because I am a nerd): I would love it if L.M. Montgomery could somehow see the Anne of Green Gables adaptation from the '80s. I've always been so interested in her critique of the Anne films that existed during her lifetime, and reading those remarks always fills me with this profound sense of 'OH, BUT IF YOU COULD ONLY SEE THIS ADAPTATION THAT CAME AROUND HALF A CENTURY LATER, WORLD'S MOST PERFECT THING.'

Er! Also: Sarah Waters is one of my favourite writers ever, and quite a renowned one -- woman is AMAZING -- and she speaks so highly of television as a medium of storytelling, and it just makes me love her all the more. ♥

I'm curious as to what set you off on this?

There are benefits to every medium, it's true, and a good example is my favorite movie/book combination of all time, The Princess Bride. The book The Princess Bride is ostensibly subtitled "S. Morgenstern's classic tale of love and adventure," and there's an entire extra storyline about the author, William Goldman, editing "S. Morgenstern's" novel so that we, the audience, only get the "good parts" version. It's a classic of postmodernism in a fantasy novel. In the film, we get the narrative framing story of the grandfather reading to his grandson. Both framing stories work for the medium they're in - you can't have parentheical asides from an editor in a movie, and you can't have visual representation of characters in a book. So both mediums have merit, and one shouldn't be dismissed in favor of the other.

(Dual action gif! Expresses my love for this post AND my love for television!)

Yes.

There are some people who get much deeper with a tv series - see Joss Whedon. (Compare Firefly with its movie. ...actually, I think Firefly is my least favourite of his tv shows - I needed more story arc! Length is an issue with him.)

ALSO anime/manga. I hate it when people trash an entire medium. It's okay to prefer certain kinds, or to not relate to one - but do you have to act like everything in that medium is of the samee quality?

I love the entirety of this post.

I'm pretty sure what "I don't watch TV" actually means is a: "this sounds better than having to pretend to be way more into stuff I only catch once in a while" (which I admit was me until the blessed advent of Hulu) or b: "I'm not going to admit I know all the Real Housewives."

don't even, with the snobbery.

Also, I love how certain shows are like the HIPSTER BANDS of some circles? EVERYBODY WATCHES MAD MEN AND MUST HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT THE CLOTHES ON MAD MEN. Somehow nobody manages to pick up on the ohmygod Michael Kimmel social criticism built into it.

or whatever snob show it is this season idgaf. screw you guys, imma watch Castle.

I love this post so much.

You don't have to LIKE or even WATCH tv, but being proud of this fact and looking down on people who love it doesn't make you intelligent, it makes you a pompous, arrogant douchebag.

Talking about the arts, tv teaches you so much about metaphors and characterization.

And some shows have powers to help you work through some real life stuff, and even teach you to be a better person. I would be a much worse person without having seen Buffy and Angel, and I'm not ashamed of this fact.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

16-year-old!Lauren was a snob. 24-year-old!Lauren knows better

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Yay blackfrancine!

Re: Yay blackfrancine!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject