The scourge of science fiction/fantasy/horror franchises and geek culture?

Quote Originally Posted by Professor Nobody

This is what threw me; apologies for the misunderstanding. As for the classism, the argument is basically thus: -social class is more than economic class -social class is defined by taste -taste is revealed by appreciation of things beyond the "beige level" -appreciation thus has a good and bad version, good for beyond the beige and bad for the beige But like I said, that was really the veneer on the odd part to me-- namely, that a beyond-the-beige consumption of art is proper nourishment for the soul, and that its absence is the most lamentable aspect of humanity! The soul. One shudders to think of anything more horrifying than consciousness in perpetuity. At any rate, though, very interesting reading, this thread.

If somebody gives non-franchise cinema or literature a chance and then having weighed both things finds that they truly prefer Thor 2 to Kafka's The Metamorphosis, fair enough. My criticism is that most people do not even consider moving outside their comfort zone and actively avoid such new experiences. It has the knock on effect of narrowing the scope of popular fiction and therefore on some level narrowing popular thought. It makes the world less varied and interesting to me.

Most people of my generation (I am a little younger than most here) do not seek out literature after they leave school. If they gave it a chance and then realised it wasn't for them, I wouldn't mind as much. I mind that people are so closed off to new experiences outside of the most corporate films out there.

Quote Originally Posted by James Sucellus

My criticism is that most people do not even consider moving outside their comfort zone and actively avoid such new experiences. It has the knock on effect of narrowing the scope of popular fiction and therefore on some level narrowing popular thought. It makes the world less varied and interesting to me.

A very curious case of this kind of thinking exists in the American branch of the tokusatsu fandom. Even though most people arrived at the fandom by going out of their comfort zones and looking up the Super Sentai progenitors of a Power Rangers series, a new comfort zone is often established, particularly among those who become against American adaptations of tokusatsu show because the original Japanese series has blood, perhaps a better story, better toys, and the fansubbers decided to add swear words.

[Professor Nobody]

Quote Originally Posted by James Sucellus

Quote Originally Posted by Professor Nobody This is what threw me; apologies for the misunderstanding. As for the classism, the argument is basically thus: -social class is more than economic class -social class is defined by taste -taste is revealed by appreciation of things beyond the "beige level" -appreciation thus has a good and bad version, good for beyond the beige and bad for the beige But like I said, that was really the veneer on the odd part to me-- namely, that a beyond-the-beige consumption of art is proper nourishment for the soul, and that its absence is the most lamentable aspect of humanity! The soul. One shudders to think of anything more horrifying than consciousness in perpetuity. At any rate, though, very interesting reading, this thread. If somebody gives non-franchise cinema or literature a chance and then having weighed both things finds that they truly prefer Thor 2 to Kafka's The Metamorphosis, fair enough. My criticism is that most people do not even consider moving outside their comfort zone and actively avoid such new experiences. It has the knock on effect of narrowing the scope of popular fiction and therefore on some level narrowing popular thought. It makes the world less varied and interesting to me. Most people of my generation (I am a little younger than most here) do not seek out literature after they leave school. If they gave it a chance and then realised it wasn't for them, I wouldn't mind as much. I mind that people are so closed off to new experiences outside of the most corporate films out there.

I don't disagree. I think that, generally speaking, we have some cultural (in the structural sense) culpability there-- which isn't to exonerate the personally lazy, but just to say that our collective values at least here in the States don't tend to support avant-garde or obscure art. But then, obscure art can never be popular, can it? Haha

I'm 30 and certainly have the same experience. There's a pretty strong disinterest in high art period, but the instant gratification of the digital generation(s) makes it particularly hard for them to, in general, value a close reading of Beckett or something.

I should add that I don't generally go in for the generational condemnation; Millennials are no worse than Boomers or Xers. I'm a faculty member at a regional school in the US and most of my students are stretched to the point of failure by competing demands-- building a resume in a crap job market; jumping through the increasingly bureaucratized hoops we call higher ed.; maintaining a social life in the age of instant accountability to peers; and of course working to finance the whole thing when their parents lost their shirts in the crisis, or never went to college themselves. To quote the imminent President, "Sad!"

But here I've swerved off into other topics.

[Professor Nobody]

Quote Originally Posted by Pharpetron

After spending years reading Western superhero comics and watching Western superhero films I can sympathize quite easily with James' lament about the 'beige' quality of the products of present-day geek culture. The problem with the art being produced by geek-culture, that which makes it 'beige', is what I'd call its conservative traditionalism. In geek culture, formulas and endless repetition of formulas reign supreme. As imaginative works, the superhero comic and the superhero film are situated in a virtual realm of nearly infinite possibilities. Yet instead of opening itself to and exploring these possibilities, the products of present-day geek culture tend to endlessly rehash the same tired tropes over and over again. This extreme privileging of the repetition of tried and true formulas found in contemporary geek-culture is such that there has been a kind of foreclosure of the imaginative realm itself, of the open and free realm of the possible, which like all foreclosures of the imaginative realm, of the possible, of the future, constitute an assault on the human 'soul'. The 'soul' that James was referring to was surely not the immortal consciousness one of traditional metaphysics, as Professor Nobody seems to believe. Rather it was the aspect of the human subject that is situated beyond the actual present; the soul is that which inhabits the imaginative realm, the realm of possibilities, the realm of true creativity rather than stagnant repetition. For me, present-day geek culture's emphasis on repetition and adherence to traditional formulas is negative in the same way that the rigid conservatism of the current Catholic Church and the rigid conservatism of Americans like Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan is negative. Like these forms of cultural and political conservatism, it closes itself off from the future and from the possible and is therefore aesthetically inferior. But how dare I invoke something so oppressive as a hierarchy in matters of art! How elitist! And truly, I am an elitist when it comes to art as to everything else. I would suggest -- scandalous! -- that some artworks and aesthetic regimes are superior and some are inferior. I would suggest that some artworks provide nourishment to the soul, to the human subject that seeks to be a site of possibilities, of a dynamic future rather than a site of stagnation and endless repetition of the same. The absence of openness to the possible, to the new, the unexpected, the future -- this to me truly is the most lamentable aspect of humanity.

Candidly speaking, I have no problem with elitism. I'm an insufferable one myself. I just find it interesting when it intersects with a critique of capitalism. There's only so much self-congratulatory commentary on taste and the system of production that can be managed.

As for your nuanced view of the soul, I'd say whatever makes the strings to which you dance more bearable, my friend.

[Pharpetron]

Quote Originally Posted by Professor Nobody

I just find it interesting when it intersects with a critique of capitalism. There's only so much self-congratulatory commentary on taste and the system of production that can be managed.

I don't understand. In what way is passing aesthetic judgments inconsistent with a critique of capitalism? If I find the exploitative conditions of capitalism unacceptable am I automatically precluded from thinking that Keeping Up With the Kardashians is vacuous garbage? Does your fashionable French theoretical authority forbid all aesthetic judgments to individuals who have a less than rosy view of capitalism? Or does he require that we approach any and all aesthetic artefacts with an attitude of absolute neutrality in order to remain suitably -- or should it be tastefully and self-congratulatorily? -- correct and upright?

[Professor Nobody]

Quote Originally Posted by Pharpetron

Quote Originally Posted by Professor Nobody I just find it interesting when it intersects with a critique of capitalism. There's only so much self-congratulatory commentary on taste and the system of production that can be managed. I don't understand. In what way is passing aesthetic judgments inconsistent with a critique of capitalism? If I find the exploitative conditions of capitalism unacceptable am I automatically precluded from thinking that Keeping Up With the Kardashians is vacuous garbage? Does your fashionable French theoretical authority forbid all aesthetic judgments to individuals who have a less than rosy view of capitalism? Or does he require that we approach any and all aesthetic artefacts with an attitude of absolute neutrality in order to remain suitably -- or should it be tastefully and self-congratulatorily? -- correct and upright?

Your rather strangely confrontational manner aside, I think you're reading normative commentary in a descriptive theory.

If you're remotely interested in an answer and not just snarky exchange, here's my two cents on the matter, about which I care very little, contrary to your apparent inference:

Class consciousness is a foundational issue in Marxism. Taste-- aesthetic judgments-- create distinctions in class that are different than the simple economic terms posited by Marx initially. Cultural elites are thus theorized as problematic to class solidarity in a manner that is similar in function but different in form than economic elites. That's all. By engaging in high-brow creation of distinctions, one reinforces boundaries between groups, which is problematic if one is interested in pushing some sort of revolution.

I'm well and truly apologetic if some guy's thirty-year-old idea perturbs you so. Have a walk. None of it means anything.

[Pharpetron]

Quote Originally Posted by Professor Nobody

Your rather strangely confrontational manner aside, I think you're reading normative commentary in a descriptive theory.

I'm sorry, Professor Nobody. Based on your previous posts in which you confronted James with his what you described as his self-congratulatory elitism I thought you were looking for a confrontational kind of conversation.

So are you saying that in your Marxist theoretical understanding of James' post, there are no value judgments at all to be read in to your descriptions of his stance as 'self-congratulatory' and 'elitist'? You and Marxist theory are purely neutral on such matter, and pass no judgments at all? Is Marxist theory purely descriptive and has no prescriptive dimension at all? I find that hard to believe given that Marx is the one who says: 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.'

Quote Originally Posted by Professor Nobody

I'm well and truly apologetic if some guy's thirty-year-old idea perturbs you so. Have a walk. None of it means anything.

I'm not really all that perturbed, you know. And if none of it -- Bourdieu, Marxism, aesthetic judgments -- means anything, then why bother talking about them at all? Why even bother taking the time to study it? Is it just mindless entertainment and fashion? Instead of Keeping Up With the Kardashians it's Keeping Up With The French Marxists? Is that what it is?

[Professor Nobody]

Quote Originally Posted by Pharpetron

I'm sorry, Professor Nobody. Based on your previous posts in which you confronted James with his what you described as his self-congratulatory elitism I thought you were looking for a confrontational kind of conversation.

Odd inference given an explicit disclaimer to the precise opposite effect, but it's no problem; I'm happy to exchange barbed commentary on the banalities of theory, French or otherwise. I'm new here and assumed that, since James was called out as a Marxist, he would find the commentary interesting or worth engaging. He apparently did and that was that-- no more or less.

Quote Originally Posted by Pharpetron

So are you saying that in your Marxist theoretical understanding of James' post, there are no value judgments at all to be read in to your descriptions of his stance as 'self-congratulatory' and 'elitist'? You and Marxist theory are purely neutral on such matter, and pass no judgments at all? Is Marxist theory purely descriptive and has no prescriptive dimension at all? I find that hard to believe given that Marx is the one who says: 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.'

Of course there are value judgments, but I have identified myself as an elitist, looking for conversation, and not meaning to pick on him by virtue of jumping in on that particular subject-- which he seems to have accepted and moved on from far more easily than you, the bit below aside. I should think that a sufficient disclaimer that I transcend nothing in this sewer called life, but this is the internet, and even a dark hole for brooding nihilists clearly has its share of people spoiling for a fight. Perhaps especially so!

Again, to address the substance, value judgments always need a criterion, right? And clearly Karl's criterion is the degree to which something is helpful or harmful to the advancement of a liberation of the people. Bourdieu and others have argued that cultural elitism, as a function of taste built on a different criterion (one of appeals to the atemporal soul or whatever you said), functions in a similar manner to economic exclusionary behavior. Again, take it up with him if you find it insufferably stupid or hypocritical or unfair. Or don't. It's no matter to me.

Quote Originally Posted by Pharpetron

I'm not really all that perturbed, you know. And if none of it -- Bourdieu, Marxism, aesthetic judgments -- means anything, then why bother talking about them at all? Why even bother taking the time to study it?

Good question. Perhaps we shouldn't. But here we are. That tricky descriptive and normative issue again, apparently. I'd wager that many would agree that it's pointless navel-gazing. But then what isn't? For my part, I've studied it instrumentally, because I need money to get by. For the record, I get by because either vestiges of optimism or, more likely, my biological strings prevent me from killing myself at the end of the logical sequence presented by our (shared) observation.

Quote Originally Posted by Pharpetron

Is it just mindless entertainment and fashion? Instead of Keeping Up With the Kardashians it's Keeping Up With The French Marxists? Is that what it is?

Of course. It's all a distraction from the our impending-by-degrees demise. French theory has long been the fare of chattering idiots in cafes, every bit as much as pick-your-reality show is the hot topic amongst chattering idiots on social media. Just as horror has been a favored subject of nerds sitting around playing Call of Cthulhu tabletop. I thought that was why we had found our particular meat suits here, on this site. Again, as I mentioned to James for whom you have so valiantly ridden to rescue, the bit about the theoretical inconsistency-- which may have been mistaken, admittedly-- was an aside to the point: that there is some favorable or unfavorable soul food. Your grand narrative about time-transcendent subject positions suits me fine as a reconciliatory tool for the whole discussion, though it is of course as much farcical nonsense as Bourdieu, Marx, Trump, or Kardashian. No?

[Pharpetron]

Quote Originally Posted by Professor Nobody

Your grand narrative about time-transcendent subject positions suits me fine as a reconciliatory tool for the whole discussion, though it is of course as much farcical nonsense as Bourdieu, Marx, Trump, or Kardashian. No?

No. Where exactly did I propose a time-transcendent subject position? The only subject position that I spoke of was a purely finite, temporal position that opens out onto a future and a set of possibilities. The present that I inhabit is oriented towards a future that has not yet occurred and which therefore exists as a set of possibilities. Tomorrow morning when I wake up, I could have a bowl of Count Chocula for breakfast, or a bowl of Captain Crunch, or an English muffin with marmalade, or scrambled eggs, or French Toast. These are just a few of the possibilities. I can eat the same thing every morning or I can vary things up. I can even invent an entirely new breakfast meal for myself through a novel mixing of ingredients. None of this is time-transcendent.

When people speak of soul, they often use the term figuratively. People say that Barry White's music has soul, but they don't mean that there is anything time-transcendent about it. In his essay entitled Death In the Soul (La Mort dans L'Ame) Camus speaks of the soul:

“No, you must certainly not go there if you have a lukewarm heart or if your soul is weak and weary! But for those who know what it is to be torn between yes and no, between noon and midnight, between revolt and love, and for those who love funeral pyres along the shore, a flame lies waiting in Algeria.”

The soul he refers to is nothing time-transcendent or immortal or eternally conscious, just as the soul I referred to in my previous post was in no way time-transcendent or immortal or eternally conscious. When I spoke of the 'soul' I explicitly defined it in terms of the radically finite subject of 'ecstatic temporality'. I'm afraid I don't consider the notion of a radically finite subject of 'ecstatic temporality' to be farcical nonsense.

[Professor Nobody]

Quote Originally Posted by Pharpetron

No. Where exactly did I propose a time-transcendent subject position? The only subject position that I spoke of was a purely finite, temporal position that opens out onto a future and a set of possibilities. The present that I inhabit is oriented towards a future that has not yet occurred and which therefore exists as a set of possibilities. Tomorrow morning when I wake up, I could have a bowl of Count Chocula for breakfast, or a bowl of Captain Crunch, or an English muffin with marmalade, or scrambled eggs, or French Toast. These are just a few of the possibilities. I can eat the same thing every morning or I can vary things up. I can even invent an entirely new breakfast meal for myself through a novel mixing of ingredients. None of this is time-transcendent. When people speak of soul, they often use the term figuratively. People say that Barry White's music has soul, but they don't mean that there is anything time-transcendent about it. In his essay entitled Death In the Soul (La Mort dans L'Ame) Camus speaks of the soul: “No, you must certainly not go there if you have a lukewarm heart or if your soul is weak and weary! But for those who know what it is to be torn between yes and no, between noon and midnight, between revolt and love, and for those who love funeral pyres along the shore, a flame lies waiting in Algeria.” The soul he refers to is nothing time-transcendent or immortal or eternally conscious, just as the soul I referred to in my previous post was in no way time-transcendent or immortal or eternally conscious. When I spoke of the 'soul' I explicitly defined it in terms of the radically finite subject of 'ecstatic temporality'. I'm afraid I don't consider the notion of a radically finite subject of 'ecstatic temporality' to be farcical nonsense.

My apologies on the misstatement of your position. A cursory reading will do that. Your existential, Levinasian infinity is noted and apology stated explicitly-- twice.

As for the degree to which it's farcical nonsense, agree to disagree. For my part, it's an idea. By people. About our condition. That does nothing to alter it (as nothing can). Spending your life railing about it in the International Journal of Existentialism for Horror Afficionados: Online will do nothing to change that condition. It might be a fundamental truth verifiable through of all our first personal experience in a Husserlian epoche, but that doesn't mean it's anything other than Keeping up with the Kardashians for intellectuals.

It can mean whatever it means to you, which is an interesting return to the initial point. You, like me, are what most would call insufferable, if not for our elitism than for our argumentative nature and tendency towards intellectualism. You admit as much before continuing, as do I. But where you see your reading of existentialism as something other than farcical nonsense, 23 year old Millennial gal sees her viewing of whatever show as something other than farcical nonsense. But then, what if she does view it as farcical nonsense and watches anyway, well aware! Is she not then the embodiment of what Camus valorizes in the embrace of the absurd? So why condemn her taste? Or rather, how? At the end of the day, you're both busily stroking yourself in the manner that suits you; she might be more authentic by virtue of recognizing that her pastimes are just that, while you cling to the sense of your position.

To abruptly hop back out of the speculative weeds, enjoy them though I do, I have to underscore my point: none of it matters, really. At all. Soon we'll be worm food and no one will give a rat's ass, assuming anyone does now, which I think we can both agree is quite an assumption!

At any rate, I hope you haven't taken this exercise personally. I have no problem with you and suspect we're rather more alike than different-- though that may breed the fiercest of animosities, of course. Cheers.