F#$@ the Potter Haters

[grysar]

Good blog entry by Matt Yglesias responding to Ron Charles article on Potter in the Washington Post.

... Instead, the publication of each Potter book seems to herald the publication of a bunch of stuff like Ron Charles whine in The Washington Postwhich, to me, makes Charles -- and through his role as a stand-in for the larger enterprise, all the literati -- look like sneering losers who've decided to elevate their idiosyncratic hobby above everyone else's in order to look on the rest of us.

Not that the literary world is unique in this regard, but it's a weird impulse. If someone expressed an interest in some niche product that I enjoy I would, I dunno, try to convey some of my enthusiasm about the subject. Try to share some wisdom. Try to build further enthusiasm. Make recommendations. Anything other than act bitter and petulant.

Let me be clear. I believe in criticism, both good and bad. (Side note, Ratatouille actually did a good job of acknowledging the importance of criticism. The acknowledgment still had some gaps, but I won't go into details because they'd be spoilery. Even so, that's impressive for a piece of art. Artists have this way of sneering right back at critics). Anyhow, I do not believe that critics should lay off because some movies or books are just for fun. I greatly enjoy negative reviews. They're fun and they're important for pointing out when the Emperor has no Clothes.

That said, whining about the downfall of reading with this sort of article isn't pointing out that the Emperor has no Clothes. There are legit things to criticize Potter for, although Potter as black and white versus His Dark Materials as a world of gray is just weak. The third book was as black and white as they come, just a contrarian definition of what's black and what's white.

These criticisms aren't because Potter is bad. They're because Potter is popular. Does it deserve this level of popularity? Eh, mass phenomenons are no longer just about about the original product but about the cultural connections that build up around it. Criticism of popular culture, including negative criticism, is important. When crap, say 'The Secret,' becomes really popular then by all means tear into it. Similarly, I have no complaints about legitimate criticism of literature I like even more than Harry Potter. However, when something good reaches the level of mass-popularity, hating on it for being popular is for losers.

Also, while I do love reading, I think it is fair to acknowledge that we're in a golden age of television right now. The rise of the DVD really has changed that medium dramatically for the better. I'm still on the balance more of a fan of written material. However, I think if you're getting all of your fiction from books, you risk missing out of on some good stuff.

Comments

[millenia.livejournal.com]

Also, while I do love reading, I think it is fair to acknowledge that we're in a golden age of television right now.

Oh, I am forced to disagree, if only on a semantic point. To me, "Golden Age" implies a preponderance of quality material, though to play devil's advocate against myself, the golden age of radio included Amos and Andy.

But I don't think we're in a (second) Golden Age of Television right now because the signal-to-noise ratio is still excessive. For every Heroes there are twenty Flavor of Love Girls: Charm School-s. Which isn't to say that we aren't in a period where there is quality, thoughtful visual storytelling going on in the medium that there wasn't before -- the economic viability of DVD re-releases of course being part of it, but also Internet synergy being a large factor too. It's more that these are quality works swimming in a sea of stupidity. We are living Newton Minnow's words right now, more or less.

Which isn't to say other media aren't having the same problem (let's face it, has there EVER been a 'golden age of books'? No, because 99% of all published books are stupid). I think, if anything, what we're seeing is the first fruits of the changing dynamic of television inside the new media landscape. Old-model television shows that don't use the net for backup, that don't cultivate fan loyalty through inviting participatory culture, that don't think about long-term market viability through re-releases, are just dropping off the map. Being a "good show" isn't enough anymore, and it used to be.

I think we'll hit that 'second golden age of TV' (it's had one already) when the exceptions become the rule.

Like I said, minor semantic judo, but an important distinction. We are essentially agreeing on the presence of good visual storytelling, if not on its density compared to TV at large.

[grysar.livejournal.com]

Hmm... reasonable point. I'm not tied to 'Golden Age' and the way you define it is more solid than my method.

Anyways, I'm not that concerned with signal to noise ratio. I certainly wouldn't disagree that 99% of television out there is crap. My take is that we've just past the initial stage of introducing new quality arced television and we're now to the point where these new shows are coming into their own. That's enough to make me happy. If we get a change in the overall signal to noise ration, that would be terrific but of secondary importance to me as a television viewer. (I tend to only be able to sustain a small number of shows at a time, so I don't need that much high quality signal to be pretty happy.)

[millenia.livejournal.com]

(I tend to only be able to sustain a small number of shows at a time, so I don't need that much high quality signal to be pretty happy.)

You and everyone else... that's just how TV is. Appointment television is pretty rare; it's the golden apple that broadcasters and cable nets go for, because it means they've got their hooks in you so deep you're willing to structure your available time around that instance... but most people use TV in a distracted way, so this isn't a big phenomenon.

What I find interesting is that, in order to create appointment television, broadcasters in particular create situations where you don't need to be there, like Lost and Heroes. Miss the show? Watch it online the next day, or get it off the iTunes store and watch it on your iPod over lunch. Miss the first arc of the story? Watch the marathon on Sci-Fi Channel the day before the show comes back from hiatus in time for sweeps. The genius of it is that by removing the appointment part, they ENFORCE the appointment part. The whole point of making it unavailable is that you're compelled to catch the first run. Of course, the Internet and spoilers and watercooler discussion still make appointment TV attractive... I just find it an interesting dichotomy.

Of course now I'm not even talking about the original topic anymore so I'll shut up.

[grysar.livejournal.com]

I'm even a bit more inept than that. I basically just do appointment TV by DVD. (I may do more of the downloading/watching online thing. I really do need to just start using my VCR, but right now I'm far enough behind on a lot of things that it doesn't help. Although a good part of that is that Kate and I have similar tastes and its harder to catch up two people then to catch up one).

That said, I think you're right. True appointment TV is enabled by letting you miss an episode. In my case its via DVD buying is my method for catching missed episodes.

Anyways, if you have more to say feel free to go on. I'm interested.

[lampbane.livejournal.com]

I don't remember who said it, but some TV producer commented that the spoiler courtesy extended to people who DVR their shows is actually killing water-cooler talk. Like, even though the show has aired, you're not supposed to talk openly about what happened because of the people who didn't watch it yet.

[lirazel.livejournal.com]

And I find it interesting how readily the concept of "spoiler" has entered the lexicon. I never saw it in the context of "someone who tells someone else about a show the second person hasn't seen yet," until about five years ago--it always had a sports or political context before. I even remember the "Wait, what?" moment I had back then, when I first came across it in someone's blog.

[grysar.livejournal.com]

I can see that. In that regard, TV is becoming a bit more like movies.