Re: my so-called life
Malcolm Lawrence (malcolm@wolfenet.com)
Sat, 13 Sep 1997 14:28:22 -0700
WILL HOCHMAN wrote:
> Malcs, you bring up something very interesting to me. When I was an
> undergraduate in the early seventies, it was uncool to watch tv. Having a
> tv in your room was absurd but having a good stereo was a necessity, and
> when you talked to someone you were attracted to, you talked music, books
> and life, not about my so called life of tv watching.
>
Touche on the apt use of the phrase. I constantly find that the only people
who complain about not having "a life," but instead reconcile themselves to
having a "so-called life" are the ones who refuse to jeopardize the countless
hours they spend with the television. I'm all for moderation when it comes to
TV, sure, but most of the people I've talked to who watch TV watch a LOT of
TV...TOO MUCH TV, and they end up having their lifestyle as a scaffold for
their TV watching and not vice versa. Have you seen those incredibly crass new
ads for ABC yet? "All we ask is eight hours of your day." "Scientists say we
only use ten percent of our brains. That's too much." Next year they'll
probably resort to "Only losers don't watch ABC." "Because who needs a life
when you have ABC."
> But here's the paradox. More than 20 years and several degrees later, I
> now watch tv. Granted my viewing is focussed on news, sports, and movies
> we rent but which my wife mostly chooses, but I do enjoy it and admit it.
> I'm aware that Mr. Salinger had a dish and probably enjoys a tv screen as
> well.
>
Well, yeah, that's to be expected from an agoraphobe.I fully understand
Camille Paglia's justification for the inherent worth and validity of
television because, quite frankly, it is the quickest way to keep on top of
which way the zeitgeist is zigzagging this season, even if, at the same time,
it can be horribly patronizing, hopelessly behind the avant garde and
embarassingly written (eg, the coming out episode of Ellen Degeneres which I
watched to see what all the fuss was about.) simply for the sake of the lowest
common denominator of "ethics" "morals" and attention span in Bumfuck, Kansas
(read: profit motive). I just don't see how anyone who has read Noam Chomsky,
Shakespeare or Krishnamurti can have the time and patience for the emotional
manipulation and enforcement of stereotypes (not to mention the
trance-inducing lull of advertisements) of a medium that is increasingly
mean-spirited and wallows in sarcasm as if it were an advanced form of wit.
Take Seinfeld for example. Given: it's a revolutionary approach to a situation
comedy, but the writers, which means the multigazillionaire Jerry himself,
haven't got the guts to be truly revolutionary. Easiest way to ensure the
continued popularity of the show? Simple. Have George be the one who has women
flocking to him because of his sensitivity. Have Jerry be the one who women
don't want to be caught dead with because of his aloof indifference to anyone
but himself. Have Kramer not only get a decent job, but a talk show where he
can milk his personality for all it's worth and make gazillions of dollars
(just like in real life) and have Jerry's sarcastic schtick become so passe
that his popularity plummets and he grovels to Kramer to have him on his talk
show. And have Elaine quit going out with loser hockey players and meet a
caring sensitive guy in a bookstore whom she notices is picking up a copy of
Franny & Zooey.
> I don't think we can dismiss tv as part of our reading lives though I'm
> not at all sure how the conflict between reading and viewing is going to
> be played out online or in my own life.
>
Three words. Decreased attention spans.
Malcolm