It’s hard for me to consider video games as a form of mass communication.
The only real communication happening on a mass scale is the transmission of symbols and social norms from the programmer to the player. All the other types of communication surrounding video games are in the player’s personal life: the anticipation of the game or the hype surrounding it’s release; the interactions of the players or player and audience; etc.
I consider the programmer’s touch a form of mass communication only to the extent that it impresses the imagination, socialization, morality, and creativity of the programmer onto everyone who plays the game. But that’s no different than sports rule-makers, legislators, artists, shopkeepers, and countless other actors with social capital who don’t actually participate in mass communication. Their actions are reported on, just as a game programmer’s work is bought and distributed by a big company. The programmer (probably) isn’t intentionally socializing all the players of his game. He merely created a work of art and it was picked up by a major distributor, and people bought it. What has the programmer communicated?
Nonetheless, video games remain fascinating to study and make fun of. They are changing (in a real and mesurable way) the way children’s brains develop. Here are a few tidbits about video games that you might find interesting:
- Several years ago, the video game industry surpassed the film industry in sales and profits, and they are pulling ahead even faster.
- Video games are known to increase certain types of hand-eye coordination. Kids gain very quick reflexes. In fact, the subliminal advertizing of the 1950′s (where a split-second image would appear during a film hoping to create a subconscious reaction in the viewer) doesn’t work anymore because new generations can spot the image. The image is usually displayed for 1/30 of a second, but them kids nowadays, they can spot em’.
- Video games have been blamed (partially) for the increase in ADHD (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder) among children. The neurological explanation (thanks to my wife) is that neuro-pathways in the brain are formed in the first several years of life, and playing fast-pased games actually hard-wires the brain to become accustomed to fast action. The brain expects this all the time, and is wired to respond to it. So, sitting still, being quiet, and listening are actually contrary to the way the kid’s brains are wired!!! This goes for ANY constant activity that developing children are exposed to, so be careful what your child does and sees in the first years of life.
It is probably safe to say that the number of people who would never split an infinitive is a good deal larger than the number of people who actually know what an infinitive is and does. – Bill Bryson, The Penguin Dictionary of Troublesome Words
”To boldly go where no one has gone before” contains a split infinitive. If this famous statement were spoken correctly it would be “To go boldly where no one has gone before” OR “To go where no one has gone before, boldly”. Sounds a bit awkward, don’t you think? This isn’t the most extreme example of split infinitives I found. I came accross this comparison on Wikipedia:
In some cases, moving the adverbial creates an ungrammatical sentence or changes the meaning. R.L. Trask uses this example:
She decided to gradually get rid of the teddy bears she had collected.
“Gradually” splits the infinitive “to get.” But if we were to move it, where would it go?
She decided gradually to get rid of the teddy bears she had collected.
This might imply that the decision was gradual.
She decided to get rid of the teddy bears she had collected gradually.
This implies that the collecting process was gradual.
She decided to get gradually rid of the teddy bears she had collected.
This would sound awkward to most native speakers of English.
She decided to get rid gradually of the teddy bears she had collected.
This is almost as awkward as its immediate predecessor.
The sentence can be rewritten to maintain its meaning, however, using a noun or a different grammatical aspect of the verb:
She decided to get rid of her teddy bear collection gradually.
She decided she would gradually get rid of her teddy bear collection.
This last sentence is probably most natural in this case. Fowler notes that the option of rewriting is always available but questions whether it is always worth the trouble.
Raymond Chandler complained to the editor of The Atlantic Monthly about a proofreader who changed Chandler’s split infinitives:
“By the way, would you convey my compliments to the purist who reads your proofs and tell him or her that I write in a sort of broken-down patois which is something like the way a Swiss-waiter talks, and that when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will remain split, and when I interrupt the velvety smoothness of my more or less literate syntax with a few sudden words of barroom vernacular, this is done with the eyes wide open and the mind relaxed and attentive. The method may not be perfect, but it is all I have.”
I think we have an intersting vantage point in Lethbridge. We have access to everything the rest of the world has on TV and the internet, but I don’t feel like most of us are immersed in the consumer culture described in The Persuaders. We can imagine big-city, big-shopping life because we see it on TV, but we don’t necessarily participate in it. At least I don’t. I look around my house and I look at the products I buy, and I can honestly say that very few products I buy are a result of advertizing.
I think the main aspects of my personality are resistant to advertizing. I see it for what it is, and I don’t get emotional about the products they’re trying to sell. I’m fairly cheap, so I examine most of my purchases for quality, durability, or features. I really, honestly, shop with my intellect, not my heart, probably to the dismay of the advertizers. Since I finished high school, I’ve never bought anything purely for it’s fashionability. If I buy something fashionable, it’s just a bonus because I bought it for other reasons (like quality, etc).
I enjoyed comparing myself to the ideal consumer as described by the advertizing and marketing people in The Persuaders. I had to agree with the statement that people really try to generate meaning from the clothes they wear. I look at myself: I love hand-me-downs, or in my case, hand-me-ups from my 6-foot-6 younger brother. I love thrift store shopping. I hate the fact that my favorite khakis ($6.99 at Value village) are from the Gap because I’m afraid people will think I bought them new for fashion reasons. I love driving an old Honda, and defending the honour of my car to anyone who asks, because of the unsurpassable quality of Hondas. I’ve owned 2 Honda cars and 3 Honda motorcycles, and I have never encountered a better quality vehicle, although there are certainly “cooler” vehicles. I think Hondas are cool because of their sheer simplicity and high quality, and I lament that they have to compete in competitive coolness advertizing against lower quality cars. I look at the products around my house and I think everything I’ve bought was either on sale or was bought for the specific purpose for which I needed it. I like the things I like, so I buy them. I don’t trust advertizing to tell me what’s good, I simply don’t believe it till I try it. I’m not loyal to any brands for branding or image reasons, only because I’ve tried it all, and I know what’s best.
My first Honda: 1980 Accord Hatchback. Died at 465,000 Km. My dad bought it used in 1986 with less than 50,000 km on it. I grew up riding in the back seat of that car, and it survived until I was old enough to drive it, and make lots of new memories in the back seat.
If any of you haven’t checked out the link that Paul gave us in the syllabus for this week, I insist you spend a few hours browsing these old gems. This is a collection of thousands of old advertising and government propaganda posters. It’s a nostalgic look at a bygone time, but there are comparisons to be made with the type of propaganda we’re exposed to now.
Back then, the message was blatant. The posters were simplistic, informative, instructional, and above all, preached the blessings of conformity and obedience. My favourite example is from the World War 2 years. Within the span of only a couple of years (if that), two contrasting posters were distributed with differing messages, and the propaganda became obvious. When all the men in the USA went to war, there was an apparent shortage of factory workers. A series of posters was released promoting the ability of women, suggesting that women had a role to play in production, that they could be a part of the industrial workforce! Woman Power!!!
Then, two years later, when all the men returned home and needed their jobs back, the next series was released. These posters told women that their place was in the home, they should raise their family and become domestic, and that this was the natural and most enjoyable place for them! Sweet.
Nowadays, the propaganda comes in the form of advertising. Even without manifestly saying so, the ads portray a way of life and a way of thinking that is in line with consumerism. As our readings point out, our society and culture are based around these messages and symbols being fed to us through the media. And don’t be mistaken: these messages aren’t reflective of what we find important in our lives. The Jhally article sites the ongoing “happiness” study, and shows that there is a huge dichotomy between what we value and what our culture says we should value. The only conclusion is that the ads are a major gear in the capitalist machine, man. Our economy and our way of life depend not only on production and investment, but also on consumption. I say we change our way of life and our economy so that we don’t need to rape each other and the earth for economic ends, since that’s not what’s important to us anyway.
Dammit, if only I had a soap box! (and if only soap didn’t come in cardboard boxes!) I could preach on the street corner and indoctrinate you all and start saving the world… Maybe, if it’s nice this weekend.
So, the entire article was devoted to legitimizing the taste-making ability of Pitchfork, while at the same time demonstrating how fleeting the popularity of the “Name Brand” magazines are. Rolling Stone and Spin are in decline because they outgrew their own coolness, and are now relegated to the supermarket checkouts beside Hello! and Star Weekly. Guess what’s in store for Pitchfork? There’s no stopping the public. They will flock to your cool site, hoist you up on their shoulders and parade you around proclaiming your greatness, only to lame-a-tize you in the process. Everything cool gets popular, and everything popular sucks.
The only thing a cool-maker can try to do is to deliberately become SO inaccessible that they could never possibly attract a legion of fans. But this puts them on the wrong side of “The Threshold”. See, there are only two directions that your coolness can go: Burn out or Fade away.
On one side of the threshold you will take the Nirvana route. Your coolness will grow exponentially and become co-opted. What you created will no longer be your own, but will be used in all kinds of perverse ways by your adoring fans (like school shooters who say they were influenced by NIN and shit like that). You will then have two choices: You be forced to roll with it, thereby relinquishing your creative edge for the approval of the masses (ie. Red Hot Chili Peppers, Green Day, Ice Cube, Aerosmith) or to end it once and for all (ie. Kurt, Janis, Jim, Jimi, Jeff, etc.)
On the other side of the threshold, you’re deliberately sucky and you’ll never make it big time. You’ll play local shows and touch dozens (if that) of lives. When you run out of money, your music career is over.
Better to burn out than to fade away (BLAM – shotgun blast).
Pitchfork will either become mainstream or self-destruct. It is a law of nature like the changing of the seasons or the decline of empires.
Thing is, I don’t actually believe the above applies to ALL artistic or musical phenomena. I’m listening to Bob Dylan while sipping a Guinness right now, and I’m thinking that there are some things really are just fucking stupendous, and will be recognized throughout the ages as awesome. If a musician (and by extention, a music reviewer) can be appreciated in it’s own time AND for generations to come (like the Dylan/Guinness duo I’ve got going on right now), then perhaps they can escape the Burnout/Fadeaway fate. It’s a rare talent that can transcend it all.
When you’re in a scene that’s growing, it’s natural to think that your scene will be the everlasting answer to what’s cool or significant. At one time I thought Grunge would save the world, but in the immortal words of Jack Black:
So, one can never know if they’re participating in a scene that will have a lasting effect.
I’m really enjoying the Guinness(es), and I want you to know that I love you all, and if you were here, I throw my arm around you and yell an Irish (pronounced Oyrish) greeting right in your face, a little too close, with beer breath.
May the saddest days of your future be no worse than the happiest days of your past…
This blog post is to fulfill my Movie-going assignment in response to Russell Smith’s “The films stink more than the greasy audience”.I must complete this assignment in two parts, because there are two recent significant movie-going experiences that I need to share with you to give the full picture of what movie-going can be.
In the first instance, we had only just begun the class, and the movie assignment didn’t cross my mind for the duration of the theatre experience.But the events of that night left such a deep impression that they will haunt me forever.For this portion, I expect a lot of people can relate.It’s an aspect of movie-going that Russell Smith didn’t account for, and has nothing to do with the audience, but nonetheless would have enraged him just as much.It is simply a reflection of the way customer service has been going lately, applied to the movie theatre experience.
In the second part, which is much more boring (which is why it appears first), I planned the evening in great detail with the assignment in mind.The results were less than spectacular.
The Intentional Assignment
I spent part of Saturday afternoon planning for the execution of this assignment.I tried to consider everything when choosing what movie I would infiltrate.After much deliberation about what kind of demographic I wanted to observe, I settled on “Casino Royale”, 9:30 showing at the Movie Mill.
Now, this decision was long in the making.I knew that the entire experience hinged on a few key decisions that would affect the crowd I was to be a part of.I quickly dismissed the extremes: “The Queen” (too snobby), and “Norbit” (too juvenile).I look forward to other student’s reviews of their experiences at those films, though.It was a tough decision between “Casino Royale” and “Blood Diamond”, both playing at the Mill.I settled on Casino Royale because it was the opening weekend for that movie at the Mill, and I figured it would be slightly busier, at the same time providing a more generic cross-section of moviegoers to observe.And, man… generic is what I got!
The surprising thing about my whole experience was how unbelievably ordinary it was.Contrary to Smith, I wasn’t appalled by anything I saw, but nor was I pleased.I had certain expectations as to what would happen, and none of my negative pre-suppositions came to be, nor did anything positive take their place.In fact, going as an observer actually took the whole fun out of it!
I expected that my wife and I would have to wade through a crowd of 13-year-old smokers just to get in the door (like usual) but because of the weather, there was nary a smoker to be found.The moment I opened the inner door, I got a lungful of that familiar butter aroma.Surprising that it overpowered the pizza, actually.A sign on the box office window directed customers to the concession to buy their tickets, so we complied.We were met with a single line-up about 20 people long, only one till open, and more people pouring in behind us.I was just about to start scribbling little quips on my notepad reminding me to rant about the customer service, but two more shiny-faced teens emerged from the back room and opened up two more tills — a minute later a fourth.I was actually quite impressed, given the events of three weeks ago (see part 2 below).Now, line-up dynamics are an interesting phenomenon.Whenever there is a long single line that splits into two, there is a perfectly fair and logical way to distribute the people.This never happens.Instead, the last half of the line moves to the newly-opened till, and the 20th person in line gets served before the 3rd.I always appreciate a cashier who acknowledges this, and instead of announcing “I can help someone over here”, they announce: “I can help the next person in line”, and sometimes even physically look and point at the next customer so that no line-butters take advantage.This is what occurred, and all the lines moved quite quickly.My longing to complain about something went unfulfilled.
We entered the theatre about 5 minutes before showtime.We chose a seat near the back left.I watched and listened carefully.Nothing but a low murmur.No one stirring or making a scene.No chomping, slurping, gurgling, churning, belching, or horking.Some people were absent-mindedly munching their popcorn, but they certainly weren’t focused on it!This is where Smith flies way off the handle in his article.The crowd doesn’t mercilessly descend upon its popcorn with intense ferocity; instead, they barely notice it’s there.They casually flick pieces into their mouths during pauses in speech or as they zone-out looking at things.There were no conversations loud enough to eavesdrop on, and there was no one funny-looking enough to comment about.The place was bo-ring.
I was confused about what was happening when the lights started dimming two minutes early.A couple of previews came on (a couple meaning exactly two!), and they were done in five minutes.The feature scheduled for 9:30 started at exactly 9:33!What was happening here!?Did they know I was coming?Why were they trying to make such a good impression on me?Maybe they saw my notepad and my private-eye trenchcoat.The movie theatre’s punctuality resulted in several people being late, and for this particular movie, missing the initial incident.Evidently, many people are of Smith’s mind that they refuse to sit through 30 minutes of previews.Unfortunately for them, tonight they missed 27 minutes of Bond.The point is: Smith is striking out real bad tonight.
The duration of the movie played out without interruption or distraction.The audience was respectfully silent throughout.No cell phones rang, no one conversed, and in fact the only vocal expressions were ones of “Whoa, dude!” during the action scenes and “Oooooohhhh” during the torture scene (see below).
Important:If you haven’t seen the movie, stop the video at 6:30 (6min 30sec) to avoid spoiling it!!!
The Un-Intentional Assignment:
(But much more telling…)
Stranger than Fiction
I tell you with absolute sincerity and with overwhelming zeal that you have to see this movie!I saw it last month, and it’s one of the best movies I’ve seen in over a year.Even with all the mitigating factors listed below, I really encourage you to see it.
I was having a rotten day, and my wife and I made the last-minute decision as we drove past the movie mill to go in and see it, since we had seen the previews and it was on our list.We had about 15 minutes before the movie started, plenty of time to get tickets, get a slice of pizza, and make our way in with plenty of time to spare.In keeping with my rotten day, though, the entire 15 minutes, plus the entire length of the previews were spent dealing with awful customer service experiences.
Getting tix was the easy part.When we went to get a slice of pizza to take into the movie, we were greeted with a sign on the till stating the new policy: “SLICES OF PIZZA WILL NO LONGER BE ALLOWED IN THE THEATERS”.What kind of crap is that!?So, without having had supper, we bought a medium “hot and ready” Hawaiian pizza — which would be hot and ready in 10 minutes — to scarf down before we went in.For efficiency’s sake, I decided to go to the concession to get our pop while we waited for the pizza, because canned pop was obviously not going to be allowed.If the movie hadn’t been a last-minute decision, we would have bought contraband snacks and smuggled them in for sure.
So, I’m in line at the concession, moving forward at an agonizing pace.Eventually, the people in front of us get served and move away.Literally, as I step toward the counter, the tween-age girl throws the sign up that says “TILL CLOSED, USE NEXT TILL”.The girl didn’t even make eye contact or say sorry.She knew she wronged me, and so she felt she had to ignore me so that she couldn’t see the look of disgust/anger on my face.I actually had hurt feelings!Such a seemingly minor lapse in service made me feel totally de-humanized and unacknowledged.Had this girl never waited in a line before?Had she no concept of fairness?
I approached the till anyway and asked loudly “Could I still be served at this till, please?”Since the girl who was there a moment ago was gone, another cashier answered, “Sorry, it’s closed”, obviously not seeing what just transpired.So, after waiting to get to the front of the line, I was expected to get in the back of another line, or but-in somewhere and risk offending other patrons.I was so shocked (probably just feeling vulnerable and over-sensitive because of my hard day), that I just left and went back to where my wife was waiting for our Pizza.I bought two cans of pop and we filled our pockets with them.Since the pizza no longer comes in personal-sized boxes, we ate as much as we could in 30 seconds, and wrapped a few pieces in napkins, filling our other pockets.Bad idea – ‘nuf said.
We got past the security station without being frisked, and that was a good break.Lucky for them, too.I was determined that I would raise such a hellfire of fury if I was confronted about the contraband that they would have called the cops for sure.I was that close to snapping.
We found seats just as the movie began, and we eluded the first few aisle checks: shoulder-checking whenever we opened a can or took a drink.How fearful we are of a kid with a name-tag and a flashlight…sheesh.I’m still waiting for an usher to try to kick me out of a movie so I can argue with him, declaring my right under the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.If he comes back with an argument like I’m on private property, and he’s an agent of enforcement empowered by the ownership, then I guess I’m beat.He’ll still have to call the cops before I leave willingly, though.Are they willing to spoil the movie for the rest of the patrons because of an “incident”, and risk everyone asking for refunds just to make a spectacle of me?I’m banking on the fact that they won’t, and so I figure I’ve got them by the balls.I hope they never give those usher kids tazers…
So, once the movie begins, I’m almost completely absorbed (with only the agents of authority to distract me).I’m one of those people I’m supposed to observe for this assignment.But the movie is soooo good!Although it borrows minor elements from other movies, it is the most unique movie I’ve seen in a couple of years.The story is calm, slow, but fascinating.The plot progresses in such a satisfying way.Even though I don’t particularly like Will Ferrell’s comedy, he’s funny in this dramatic role.Emma Thompson is a genius in her craft; I love everything she’s in.For a “Hollywood” release, this is surprisingly good.When the movie ended, I wanted to stand up and applaud, but I was stuck in my seat, jaw-dropped and pleasantly bewildered.
I forgot all about my rotten day, the bad service, and the anxiety of the little-big-brother dude with the flashlight.I guess that’s the intended power of movies.They allow you to escape. They bring you on an emotional roller-coaster and then let you down easy, usually.I left feeling much better than when I arrived.This film was just what I needed on that day, but I’m sure it would have been just as good if I’d been in any frame of mind.
And for Paul, who typically avoids anything recommended by anyone other than “very specific people”, I say: You’ve probably seen this movie already because it wasn’t exactly mainstream, but if you haven’t, ignore your prejudice and see it anyway! Awesome sountrack, too.
I really look forward to all your comments about “Stranger Than Fiction” or about customer service experiences you’ve had.Thanks for reading.
Abuse Your Illusions: The Disinformation Guide to Media Mirages and Establishment Lies. By Russ Kick
Necessary Illusions: Thought control in Democratic Societies. By Noam Chomsky.
If you’ve read any of my previous posts you know that Chomsky is my hero. I read Necessary Illusions a few years ago, and it deals with exactly the same themes as the excerpt from “Abuse Your Illusions”. The Chomsky excerpt we had to read this week wasn’t from Necessary Illusions, but much of Chomsky’s media analysis points in the same direction. The example from Russ Kick’s article is simply an updated modern example of what Chomsky describes in great detail and with impeccable methodological rigour 20 years earlier in Necessary Illusions.
Chomsky’s book was written in 1986-87, during and just after some serious shake-ups in Central America, specifically: Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Few North Americans know about the atrocities commited by the USA in those countries from 84-86, and if you want to know in detail, you should read the book. It takes on a whole new light in the post-911 world (I hate that term — there is no post-911 world, just a bunch of shit that’s been going on lately that we think is so serious and important, as if we should call this year 0006 P/911 instead of 2007 A.D.) with it’s new and improved definitions of terrorism.
An awesome tidbit from Chomsky’s book: Guatemala (I think) brought a complaint to the U.N. about the aggressive armed coercion that the USA was using against it, by arming and funding terrorist groups to overthrow the democratically elected (but anti-USA) government. The U.N. heard the complaint in its general assembly. The U.N. adopted a resolution that the USA’s actions were considered terrorism, and ordered the USA to stop its aggression. The vote was unanimous among ALL countries — except the USA and Israel. Because the USA has veto power, the resolution failed. But every other country in the world recognized that the USA’s actions were blatant terrorism! The aggression continued and hundreds of thousands were murdered over the course of three (or more) years.
Chomsky’s Necessary Illusions goes into great detail about his analysis of the coverage of the events in Central America by the New York Times and Washington Post. The spin that those papers put on the atrocities mirror the distortion described in the Kick article. Chomsky’s analysis is rigourous. He measures things like “column-inches” to measure coverage of a story, and as an expert and innovator in linguistics, he can point out the selection, slanting, and charged language that appears in those most respected newspapers. He also points out many misquotes (like the Times has made about Hugo Chavez in recent years, according to Kick) and many false “state department” news releases.
Kick’s renewal of these ideas is useful for a new generation of socially concious citizens. His writing style is alot more readable than Chomsky’s, although lacking in substantive analysis. I would recommend Necessary Illusions to anyone interested in Media analysis, distortion, media ownership structures, media-corporate-government co-operation, and the idea that a capitalist democracy needs a docile and agreeable citizenry to legitimize a nation-state’s brutal force against its enemies, and that the media is the most effective form of propaganda to achieve this end.
Don’t get discouraged, just do as my buddy Dubya says and stay steadfast in your determination and resolve.
Have a great week y’all. Oh, I almost forgot: “Festivus!”
I was intrigued by John Fiske’s article but found it to be lacking in several ways. Possibly because it was outdated, but I don’t think so. I found most of the article’s theory to be perfectly applicable to TV nowadays as much as in 1987. Really, the article wasn’t about TV at all, it just used TV as the most current, propagated, and popular medium of ’87. The article was really the answer to the Merchants of Cool, but fifteen years beforehand. In M.O.C., the underlying argument is that cool is a cyclical phenomenon, originating in the “streets”, becoming mainstream and commercial, then being sold back to the masses. Producers are always playing catch-up, but ultimately, they decide what enters into popular culture based on their projected bottom line. I guess I find anything pre-internet a bit outdated, because internet changed everything — or did it change anything? Stay tuned for the definitive answer in my next blogs.
Fiske’s article touched on several viewpoints, and he even acknowledges the well-known relationship I just mentioned between Producers and Consumers, in effect making the Merchants of Cool seem horribly outdated! But although Fiske sees the obviousness of this transaction, he reaches for an alternative view, desperate to prove that the masses are not mindless obedient drones.
He states that each TV viewership (or, demographic of viewers) reacts in a culturally prescribed way, finding appropriate meanings that jive with their world view. This ultimately subverts the efforts of the Producers, because they can’t account for the wide range of reactions, and even the advertisers who sponsor a show can’t expect to reach potential consumers because of the variety of interpretations of the messages. He gives the example of Jewish Kibbutz and Russian Jews who view the show “Dallas” as a veiled critisism of American materialism. Here’s a quote:
“This incorporation of the program into local culture is an active, oral process that denies any overwhelming precedence to the Hollywood culture. The audiences participate in the meanings of the program in a way that the Hollywood moguls can neither foresee nor control.”
I, However, believe that the wiles of capitalism know no bounds. Capitalism has proven itself to be adaptable, subtle, invisible, and paradoxical. It is a shapeshifter that is even beyond the grasp of those who shape it. This being so, I read Fiske’s article with a filter for anything that mitigates the culpability of capital in the transmission of culture. A Marxist/conflict perspective observer (Like Me & Chomsky, old pals) will point out that in entertainment, as in the news, it is not only what is displayed that is of interest, but what is omitted or absent! Fiske argues that the media give us endless choices and possibilities for every taste and genre. Perhaps true, but the scope of choices is actually confined to what will benefit capital in the end, and the only way to participate in a genre is in the way that is prescribed by capital. The only real change is what group of capitalists are served by what genres and sub-genres, as it was so eloquently described in “The Rebel Sell”.
One should never cease to seek the motivation behind any action. Why does a network air a TV show? To sell advertising, of course. But what of the shows that have actual artistic merit or are genuinely good, why do networks spend so much on their genuine artistic development? Well, as more people watch those shows, the network can command a higher price for advertising… There are likely to have been many more shows that would have actually created positive social change, but were cancelled due to lack of viewership (which really means lack of advertisers willing to buy time during the show).
Fiske’s article was one of the most interesting ones yet, if only for thought and idea stimulation. Does the Internet debunk everything Fiske wrote, or require a re-writing and a re-conceptualization of his ideas?
Above: The Future of virtual communities – A scene from The Matrix
You all read the article (surely, since it was our only reading this week), so I don’t need to summarise it for you, I’ll merely ask you to recall portions as I address the particular points of interest and contention.
This occurred to me suddenly while reading the article. I was surprised by the omission of such a relevant idea, especially since the author has expertise in Cyberspace victimisation, Managing crime, Crime control, and Criminal justice.
To answer the question she used as a paragraph heading: What is different about virtual communities?I suggest the following. Aside from financial crime and fraud, virtual communities are practically devoid of any legal obligation to tell the truth. In the “real” world, one cannot fabricate lies and defamation about someone, for fear of lawsuits or criminal prosecution for libel, slander, or defamation. In virtual communities however, the author describes situations akin to “virtual rape” (although the author gives no clue as to what she means), or levels of chat-room sexual harassment as extreme as in the real world. Where is the legal recourse for such victims? We’re all aware of the growing white-collar crime industry, which has more to do with scams, stealing information, or distorting accounts to funnel money. But what of the on-line slander, harassment, rape(?), or defamation? Has there ever been a legal proceeding because of chat-room crime? Even if it was possible, how do you prosecute someone in the UK, USA, India, etc.?
If you think chat-rooms aren’t suceptible to illegal communications, consider these real-life crimes that could easily be committed in a chat-room:
Despite freedom of speech, it’s illegal to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded space if there’s no fire.
It’s illegal to disseminate libel, slander, or defamation if it’s untrue.
It’s illegal to incite riots or other violent organization.
It’s illegal to promote or organize violent overthrow of the government (seriously).
It’s illegal to disseminate hate literature based on race, sexual orientation, religion.
It’s almost as though chat-rooms are like hockey rinks (where assaults go unprosecuted). It would take a whole new level of international law enforcement to deal with it, so I admit the task would be daunting. Should we even try to criminalize chat-room “crime”, or should the Internet be self-regulating, relying on vigilante justice? Lots to consider. Let’s move on…
Also under the heading: What’s different about virtual communities, Evans writes about the benefits of chat-rooms: ”For Wellman, this leads to relationships which are purer in essence, uncluttered by the expected niceties and polite conversations which characterise our physically bounded relationships and avoiding the fear and danger which can be part of encounters in disorderly streets. Harcourt suggests that this aspect of the technology has been particularly useful in encouraging women’s use of the Internet, adding that this medium can ‘…involve women who due to their culture or locality would not be in a position to voice their opinion.’ (1999:2) in other spaces.”
Do we really consider this progress? Instead of developing manners (niceties and polite conversations), we talk in ridiculous text-message abbreviations and block any messages from people we don’t want to acknowledge. Instead of overcoming our agoraphobia and taking a chance on a fearful and dangerous (DUM Dum dum…) encounter in the street, we cower in our basements and bomb shelters typing madly about the apocalypse which is the outside world. And my favorite of all, involving women who could not otherwise speak up. I guess it’s easy for me to say “fight for your right” since, as a white male, I’ve never had to. But the Internet chat-rooms still have little bearing on one’s “real life”, so if you’re an oppressed minority woman, ignoring the problem and sneaking your opinions onto the Internet while your husband is philandering is not advancing your liberation! Sigh.
I would love to carry on about this article at greater length, but in the interest of concision, I’ll save it. I think I’ve fulfilled my blog requirement here already. I encourage your responses…
“My ultimate goal as a revolutionary is to have my face plastered across the T-shirts of rich white kids” – Ernesto “Che” Guevara
Damn! I knew I should have bought this book when it was on the bargain table at Chapters. What an awesome article! I was attracted to this book because of the chapter entitled “Who killed Kurt Cobain?” which was an analysis of the emergence and commercialisation of the Grunge-rock scene. By the time you read this post, the book will be on it’s way to my house. Luckily, my wife works at Chapters and gets 30-40% off when she orders online. Ha! Suckers…
This article is right on. Punk-ass teenagers who think they’re rebels or members of a counterculture should read it. Not to crush their childish hopes and dreams, but to demonstrate that their rebellion is a complete facade. If they really want to oppose mass culture they need to stop buying seventy dollar hoodies with a skateboarding company logo on it. They should re-direct their teen agnst and rebellious attitude towards the true evil: Capitalism.
Those of you who have seen the documentary “The Corporation” will remember Michael Moore’s reasoning for the allowance of counter-culture messages in the mainstream media: There’s a buck to be made. Hence Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Corporation playing at corporate-owned theatres and available on DVD from corporate distributors. There’s a market for counter-culture messages, and it’s one of the main contradictions inherent to capitalism.
I like both the Canadian-ness and recentness of this article. The analysis of modern, well-known movies was helpful, too. I love finding out what movies are actually about. I don’t always get it the first time, or I don’t always understand underlying messages in movies, but when they’re described as they were in the article, it all makes sense.
Fascinating to think that we consume counter-culture products to set ourselves apart from the mainstream, only to put ourselves in a slightly-less-main-stream. Furthermore, we need the rare or exclusive items (like Naomi Klein’s Toronto loft) to express our individuality. So, in essence, we’re only as individual as the available products allow us to be. I loved the Naomi Klein example, but don’t let it turn you off of reading No Logo. It’s a worthwhile book despite her fumble about the loft.
The other important message from the article: SUV’s suck. Don’t buy one! Serious. I want to pull over and smash the windows out of every Hummer H2 I see. They’re disgusting status symbols and wrong on every level. Worried about traction in the winter? Try a Subaru.
