![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
And yes! Sherman Alexie! ♥
no subject
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.