I haven't actually seen (a whole of) Honey Boo Boo or the Kardashian show, so if I'm way off, fight me and you win.
Honey Boo Boo is a child, which is problematic, but the Kardashians are adults who are making some pretty good money I assume by playing themselves on TV.
I think that the youngest Kardashian girl was a minor during at least part of the run of their show, because I have a vague memory that one of the subplots in the one episode I have watched was about the older girls giving her horrible advice re: her first period. I may be misremembering, but I can't really google to verify, because I don't want the NSA catching my search for "kardashian minor menstruation". Fake ETA: OK, I googled their actual ages, and both half-sisters would have been minors when the show started.
Quote:
How is that really concretely different from a biographical or lifestyle documentary, apart from the TV versions usually being more scripted? Would you judge someone the same for enjoying Marwencol or Grey Gardens or Brother's Keeper or the Up series? They're really all pretty voyeuristic, and the subjects' lives are trainwrecks to varying degrees, but people never seem embarrassed about liking those.
I think the difference and, again, this just may be me, but I feel like with many of the reality shows, the viewer is sort of being invited to look down on and feel superior to the people in the show. Like, the main draw of that show about the very young beauty pageant contestants (I have watched maybe 75% of one episode, so I'm basing this mostly off of hearing other people talk about the show) seems to be for the viewer to tut tut and have a self-righteousgasm about how awful those parents on the show are compared to how they themselves parent or imagine they would parent. Or, with the Kardashian show, it feels like the main draw is that the viewer gets to similarly envy them for being rich and despise them for being entitled and (supposedly) dumb. That's what feels icky to me. Documentaries, even really bad ones, don't really do that, I don't think. The point of a biography of, say, Hitler isn't to make the viewer feel morally superior to Hitler.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
I kind of like Love It or List It but their formula is getting really old. They always want half their house renovated for no money and the contractors almost always discover that the plumbing or electrics or both need to be replaced, or it's not to code or the homeowners association won't let them do it. Then the homeowners get mad. And on the rare occasions they don't find any horrible costly repairs, the homeowners make some unreasonable demand that means they only get half of what they want done. Funny thing, but it's the exceptions on that show that throw the formula into such vivid relief.
That always cracks me up. My SO loves those shows, so they're what's on when she wants background noise. My favorite part about them is trying to guess ahead of time which part of the renovation is going to harbor the hidden tragic expensive surprise that no one could have foreseen (unless they bothered with an inspection before they started tearing shit apart).
The house shopping shows are my TV kryptonite, because I like looking at the pretty houses, but I pretty uniformly hate all the people on them. Like, I know that they are instructed to play up the minor faults they find with whatever house they're supposedly considering buying, and I know they've usually already bought some other house and are just putting on a show, but every time they sneer about how "dated" something is or walk into a room and gasp about how "this will have to go", I want to punch them in their stupid entitled throats. So, maybe I am the problem I was talking about in my last post.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
I kind of like Love It or List It but their formula is getting really old. They always want half their house renovated for no money and the contractors almost always discover that the plumbing or electrics or both need to be replaced, or it's not to code or the homeowners association won't let them do it. Then the homeowners get mad. And on the rare occasions they don't find any horrible costly repairs, the homeowners make some unreasonable demand that means they only get half of what they want done. Funny thing, but it's the exceptions on that show that throw the formula into such vivid relief.
That always cracks me up. My SO loves those shows, so they're what's on when she wants background noise. My favorite part about them is trying to guess ahead of time which part of the renovation is going to harbor the hidden tragic expensive surprise that no one could have foreseen (unless they bothered with an inspection before they started tearing shit apart).
The house shopping shows are my TV kryptonite, because I like looking at the pretty houses, but I pretty uniformly hate all the people on them. Like, I know that they are instructed to play up the minor faults they find with whatever house they're supposedly considering buying, and I know they've usually already bought some other house and are just putting on a show, but every time they sneer about how "dated" something is or walk into a room and gasp about how "this will have to go", I want to punch them in their stupid entitled throats. So, maybe I am the problem I was talking about in my last post.
Off Topic, sort of.
If you are ever in a position to have a new house built, design it yourself and draw exactly what you want. If your builder says you need to go with what an architect designs, get another builder. We had a new house built 5 years ago and the builder just copped my drawings onto his paper and built from there.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Part of the reason I never cared for the notion of "guilty pleasures" is because a lot of the distinction between "high culture" and "low culture" seems rather artificial.
It goes something like this, I think:
Sophisticated people (which has traditionally meant rich people) subsidize things like operas and symphonies and art museums. Which proves how sophisticated they are. And everybody knows that sophisticated people are better than the unwashed masses. How do we know? Because sophisticated people appreciate sophisticated things, like classical music and fine wines and the like, demonstrating that they have excellent taste. And the unwashed masses drink things like beer and watch television. Which demonstrates how unsophisticated they are, and that they have terrible taste.
And no, that reasoning isn't the least bit circular. So there. And the very fact that you suggested otherwise makes me suspect that you're one of those low-class, no-taste, unsophisticated boobs.
A lot of it is also about art that requires a certain background to enjoy. Whether that's educational or simply about your class/racial/regional/etc. background.
You can't enjoy opera or Shakespeare as much if you don't understand the language being used, or the conventions it follows which are not familiar to the average person (at least, not anymore). And of course those conventions change over time... In a couple hundred years, some things which are "low-brow" today may be seen as high-brow simply because they require specialized knowledge to fully appreciate.
Part of the reason I never cared for the notion of "guilty pleasures" is because a lot of the distinction between "high culture" and "low culture" seems rather artificial.
It goes something like this, I think:
Sophisticated people (which has traditionally meant rich people) subsidize things like operas and symphonies and art museums. Which proves how sophisticated they are. And everybody knows that sophisticated people are better than the unwashed masses. How do we know? Because sophisticated people appreciate sophisticated things, like classical music and fine wines and the like, demonstrating that they have excellent taste. And the unwashed masses drink things like beer and watch television. Which demonstrates how unsophisticated they are, and that they have terrible taste.
And no, that reasoning isn't the least bit circular. So there. And the very fact that you suggested otherwise makes me suspect that you're one of those low-class, no-taste, unsophisticated boobs.
A lot of it is also about art that requires a certain background to enjoy. Whether that's educational or simply about your class/racial/regional/etc. background.
You can't enjoy opera or Shakespeare as much if you don't understand the language being used, or the conventions it follows which are not familiar to the average person (at least, not anymore). And of course those conventions change over time... In a couple hundred years, some things which are "low-brow" today may be seen as high-brow simply because they require specialized knowledge to fully appreciate.
Yes, you can only get the full impact of the work if you know exactly what it is about. I don't speak or understand Italian (which is the language of 'Madam Butterfly', I think?) but I had a rough idea of the plot. Then I acquired the libretto and followed along in English exactly what was being said. Once was enough, if it's a tragedy, I'll just listen to the music, I might try to find the libretto for a comedy.
In fact I did get the Libretto for 'Gianni Schicchi' and that was a lot of fun.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
The house shopping shows are my TV kryptonite, because I like looking at the pretty houses, but I pretty uniformly hate all the people on them. Like, I know that they are instructed to play up the minor faults they find with whatever house they're supposedly considering buying, and I know they've usually already bought some other house and are just putting on a show, but every time they sneer about how "dated" something is or walk into a room and gasp about how "this will have to go", I want to punch them in their stupid entitled throats. So, maybe I am the problem I was talking about in my last post.
I don't watch the ones where they are looking here in the US, unless they are looking for a historic property or something kinda interesting (like a old city townhouse or something). If they are looking for modern homes in some 'burb or another though, no thank you. I live in a 3 bd 2 ba ranch with granite and stainless, I don't need to see them in Ohio too, especially with whiny bitches looking at them.
House Hunters International is great though. I love it when whiny Americans are all "I want old world charm and character!" when what they really want is an American 'burb home with crown molding and ivy on the front. They are invariably disturbed and dismayed by real "old word character" like kitchens tucked under stairs, a single tiny bathroom with either a tub or a shower but rarely both, and odd shaped, closet sized bedrooms with no actual closet. I lol and lol
TLC used to have a show called Moving Up that featured three couples buying and renovating each others homes. The first couple bought the second's home as a starter home and the second bought the third's home. Then we watched them change everything and the couples who had sold came back to see the difference. Those people were horrible about the others' tastes, just truly vicious. Wanted to punch pretty much every one of them even though I know the producers were pushing them to be that vile.
Still watched, though, so I'm as bad as Adam.
__________________
"freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette
A short list of things that I am into that I do not feel guilty about include watching reality TV shows about weight loss or hoarding, listening to popular music on the radio, reading gossip magazines like US Weekly and People, and watching TMZ.
So the girl who lost way too much weight on the Biggest Loser this year is on the cover of both People and Us Weekly this week. I literally plotzed in the Kroger.
At some point in my life I realized the people I respected didn't care what others thought of what music they listened to, books they read, hobbies, or what have you, and were just up front about it whether or not it was cool. I am judgy, but attempt to ease back with a keen recognition that I like some pretty bad shlock, like Rob Schneider movies. But I still do judge a friend who enjoys and owns all the seasons of Two-and-a-Half Men, though I can admire his guilt-free enjoyment of such.... I guess.
And if someone tells me they love Dinosaur Comics I think a lot less of them because that shit is straight up atrocious and I hate it with a white-hot ball of fury.
I suppose it is only natural when one unveils the shiny red button that others would desire to push it. Touche, sir. I am undone. Though now I fear that my every thought and response is actually as banal, stupid, and tedious as those fucking Dinosaur Comics. Talk about cosmic comeuppance. I had seriously better step up my game.
Evil genius, JoeP. Evil, evil genius.
ETA:
Here's the thing. Comics have two primary elements: artwork and writing. Sometimes the artwork can be technically weak, but the writing is strong enough to carry it- The Far Side or Hyperbole and a Half or Get Your War On are great examples of this. Sometimes the writing can be weak, but the art is strong enough that it offsets the weak writing. Jack Kirby's work made you want to forgive some of the bad, bad, very bad story lines he illustrated. Tony Millionaire's writing is uneven, but his artwork never disappoints. Jim Woodring composes one-panel comics that are beautiful, proficient, ineffable and sometimes confusing or jarring- the writing is minimal and the painting itself is a sort of numinous narrative. That at the very least draws me in and holds my attention.
A lot of comic strips are pretty weak tea, combining tepid artwork with tepid writing. But all I ask is, have something. Be able to write. Or draw. Or both.
Dinosaur Comics breaks with tradition in this way: it has static art. The art is shitty, never changes, and has nothing to do with the writing. Ever. But then the writing itself is the kind of puerile crap one might write at any time ever with the barest effort. You could compose Dinosaur Comics every morning in about 30 seconds while taking a dump, or typing stupid things into your laptop at the local internet cafe. So it has nothing redeeming about it. Nothing. No insight, no beauty, no humor. But that's not all: it's not even satirical. It is not someone turning a formula on its head or making fun of the comics form or breaking new ground- it is someone who doesn't understand the medium. Who illustrates his random, mediocre thoughts with static, meaningless visuals. I get zero value out of his comics, and in fact feel poorer, like I have been robbed of what little time I spent bothering to read his... whatever it is, which so far as I can determine is a negative value. The local free rag carries it on their comics page and once a year or so I will curse myself and then plunge in to see- have I missed it? Is there something here that I am just not seeing? Has Ryan North improved his writing? Is there wit to be found?
Nothing. Dead letter every time. I've said it before: Dinosaur Comics makes Cathy look like fucking Maus. And Cathy is just someone vomiting string on paper and writing a brief ode to oppressive patriarchy inside the mind of a office drone.
Fuck Ryan North.
Last edited by chunksmediocrites; 02-21-2014 at 05:08 AM.
However, it could also be applied to a good many other webcomics, nearly all of Twitter, more than all of Facebook, many popular novels, a not inconsiderable number of films, the Countdown thread, and most of the other posts here. There's so much dross around, and in any of those media the occasional gem germ of a wry smile, that some people sometimes put up with some of the dross and still get some reward. Or at least live in hope.
And of course, I wasn't making any statement about your words.
Nor any endorsement of Dinosaur Comics. (I have a vague idea I may have found something funny in one of them at least once.)
I just have a compulsion. When I see an opportunity for a reflexive / meta joke I have to take it.
I could just as well have said "I know you are, but what am I?" or even NO U!!
However, it could also be applied to a good many other webcomics, nearly all of Twitter, more than all of Facebook, many popular novels, a not inconsiderable number of films, the Countdown thread,
So, does it count as a guilty pleasure when I spend near $200 on Chanel cosmetics and then realize I could have bought the Ikea sink I've been procrastinating about for years for less? Cause sometimes I do that, but I still buy the Chanel instead.
__________________
"freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette
However, it could also be applied to a good many other webcomics, nearly all of Twitter, more than all of Facebook, many popular novels, a not inconsiderable number of films, the Countdown thread, and most of the other posts here. There's so much dross around, and in any of those media the occasional gem germ of a wry smile, that some people sometimes put up with some of the dross and still get some reward. Or at least live in hope.
And of course, I wasn't making any statement about your words.
Nor any endorsement of Dinosaur Comics. (I have a vague idea I may have found something funny in one of them at least once.)
I just have a compulsion. When I see an opportunity for a reflexive / meta joke I have to take it.
I could just as well have said "I know you are, but what am I?" or even NO U!!
Good points and I thought your paste was very funny and a stroke of genius.
Here's the thing. Comics have two primary elements: artwork and writing. Sometimes the artwork can be technically weak, but the writing is strong enough to carry it- The Far Side or Hyperbole and a Half or Get Your War On are great examples of this.
I wouldn't necessarily say that the writing is carrying weak art, expecially in the case of Get Your War On. I think the fact that the visuals in GYWO are bland, commoditized clip art representations of office workers actually enhances the comic, rather than being a weakness the writing has to cover for. The barren, soulless corporate wasteland implied by the stock art is the "freedom" that is the ostensible goal of the horrific events discussed in the text are carried out in pursuit of.
The thing that frustrates me about Dinosaur Comics is that, conceptually, it's actually an interesting idea. It's like a haiku or a sestina. Every strip has to conform to a structure where T-Rex says something longish, T-Rex says something brief in close-up, T-Rex addresses Elasmosaur, etc., etc. That could have been awesome. I just don't think North's a talented enough writer to pull it off.
ETA; Oh, and in the case of HaaH, I can't imagine "CLEAN ALL THE THINGS!" working half as well with anything but Brosh's bug eyed goblin artwork. It's not photorealstic obviously, but I think her style works very well with the sort of strip that HaaH is.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
Re: Guilty Pleasures
Linear Mode
