|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Jan 31, 2011 8:11:50 GMT -5
McFarland is indeed a real publisher. It's small, even in the world of academic publishing, but it's hardly self-publishing.
But they do publish for academic audiences. This isn't one of those "[insert pop culture phenomenon] and Philosophy" books that tries to bridge the gap between scholarship and fandom. This is scholarship by scholars for scholars, so don't go after it unless you know what you want.
And, callipygias, I respectfully but completely disagree that studying something kills its humor. You may not laugh WHILE you're analyzing it, but, to me, it actually increases the fun in the end. After all, isn't MST precisely the kind of humor that requires you to be self-conscious about the movie you're watching? All analysis does is increase that self-consciousness. It's not like the Brains didn't make self-conscious jokes about themselves and the kind of thing they were doing in the middle of the show.
I know people, especially ex-English majors, often dismiss academic language, but it serves the same purpose as any specialized technical jargon: it allows people to refer to a set of ideas without having to explain them from scratch each time. No one expects engineers to write like regular human beings when they write for each other. So why should literature scholars? If this book was meant for a general audience, then, yeah, that'd be a problem. But being published where it is, it's designed for a more targeted audience.
In other words, don't criticize it for being what it's supposed to be. ;D
|
|
|
Post by callipygias on Jan 31, 2011 9:48:32 GMT -5
And, callipygias, I respectfully but completely disagree that studying something kills its humor. I didn't actually mean that as a general statement, that's why I said "For me" at the start. I know there are many people that can enjoy a thing more by studying it academically, whether it's a painting, song, movie, book, whatever. I call them nerds throw things at them, but I admit they exist. As to why most scholars write the way they do though, we can disagree. I understand why they want to, I think, but it seems to come naturally to few, and the rest are usually at least moderately embarrassing to read.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Jan 31, 2011 10:51:07 GMT -5
And, callipygias, I respectfully but completely disagree that studying something kills its humor. I didn't actually mean that as a general statement, that's why I said "For me" at the start. I know there are many people that can enjoy a thing more by studying it academically, whether it's a painting, song, movie, book, whatever. I call them nerds throw things at them, but I admit they exist. As to why most scholars write the way they do though, we can disagree. I understand why they want to, I think, but it seems to come naturally to few, and the rest are usually at least moderately embarrassing to read. Fair enough. Although I think that's probably true of any writing. [Self-righteous defensive rant begins...but, hey, it's part of what I do for a living, so forgive me] What I don't like, however, is how quickly people dismiss academic or scholarly writing because it isn't always immediately accessible. I see that in my students all the time. They're quick to say that something is "pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo" when they don't recognize that what's actually happening is that they're coming into a conversation halfway. For example, the sample essay from this book: I can imagine someone thinking that the whole thing is just a complicated way of saying "MST3K fans work and talk together." But they use terms like "fan identities," "intertextuality," "collective intelligence," and "collaborative knowledge building activities." The point isn't to make a simple idea sound smart. The point is to connect MST to various other theories and phenomena in sociological studies. Those phrases are general terms that are commonly used in certain aspects of sociology that try to categorize and understand all kinds of different social phenomena. So using those terms is a way of connecting MST to other things studied by the same kinds of scholars. The real payoff of an essay like that isn't for a fan...we already know that we do everything the essay says that we do. But for other sociologists who may not even have heard of MST3K, it gives them all kinds of tools and terms and references that they're familiar with and allows them to see MST fandom alongside other things. In other words, the essay isn't of much use to a general fan, although for a sociologist, it suddenly makes MST accessible. Does that make sense? Most scholarship is doing something like that: it's designed for a very particular audience. When people who are just generally interested in something go and read it, they're coming at it without that context where all the intellectual scaffolding and paraphernalia that most people see as "mumbo jumbo" is actually meaningful. Their reaction makes sense, but it's also often a misunderstanding of what the writing is actually supposed to be doing. My students often complain that academics should write in a way that explains and clarifies what they're talking about...when, instead, they just confuse it even more. But what they don't get is that scholars really aren't writing to them; they're writing to other scholars who are often interested in different and very specialized issues. Some people happen to be good at speaking to both audiences at the same time, and they're a treasure. (And, of course, there's plenty of just bad writing, but, like I said, that's true of everything.) But the majority of it is stuff that's really just on the level of a "trade publication": they don't care about making themselves comprehensive to you if you aren't part of their trade. Since they're writing about something you like, you may feel irritated when they write in a way that seems either unnecessary or convoluted. But it's also important to realize who they're writing for before you judge them as just bad writers. [rant over]
|
|
|
Post by KyrieEleison on Jan 31, 2011 21:51:39 GMT -5
I know it might sound different, Mummi, but you're preaching to the choir here. (Was that ex-English major thing a jab at me? ;D) I just wish my professors had taken the time to define some of the words for us, as how can we be expected to understand the meaning of the "pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo" (a term I take offense at: it's very intellectual mumbo-jumbo )? They used to teach us to write as though someone with no knowledge on the subject was going to read our work. While I never presumed that the authors were ever writing to me (the girl who on more than one occasion tried to sneak random silly references into papers), maybe it would be nice if the scholars did the same. I can see it now: The Journal of the American Medical Association for Dummies and Pre-Med Students.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Feb 8, 2011 12:20:15 GMT -5
interesting presumption that misties have this sorta single-mindedness of purpose... you know, that in order to become "one of the right people" misties feel this need to develop all this cultural literacy and band together and use collective knowledge to get all the jokes. i sorta think the point of the show is more that we all mostly have heads full of pop-cultural arcana to begin with so we relate to mst3k's obscure jokes whether we get them or not. a lot of mst3k jokes refer to things i'm not familiar with but i don't feel the need to hit pause and go run to google every time. part of the fun of the show is that a lot of it goes by you on a first viewing, that's why you can watch them over and over and they don't get boring, because they're so information-rich. i also don't think mst3k is about "resisting" pop-cult or "appropriating resistance" to the banality of pop culture. although that's a reliable go-to in cultural studies scholarship. i think there's a lot of tension in the show between claiming the movies M/J&tBs are being forced to watch are bad or whether there's a certain affection for these movies, on the part both of the BBs and of the fans. i mean, the mads are always about, "this movie will finally be the one that kills you!" but at the end the bots are usually pretty fine ('this movie should have killed them but instead it's only making them stronger' and so on) and they really seem to have a certain grudging affection for the personalities in the movies -- you know, robert lippert, ross hagen, etc., etc. so i don't think mst3k is about, "oh, these movies are bad, so let us resist them by riffing on them," i really think it's a lot more of an archival type project, so it's actually the opposite; it's resurrected a lot of pop-cultural artifacts that otherwise would have probably drifted into obscurity (ahembillrebaneahem) and i'm actually grateful to the show for that. i dunno, if i was doing scholarly research on mst3k i'd probably focus more on that, and less on the idea that misties are on some sort of neo-marxist collective project to critique and oppose intellectually bankrupt pop culture, cuz i just don't think it's the case, it's more complicated than that.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Feb 8, 2011 12:23:02 GMT -5
i have to admit i love seeing "(Sampo, 2010)" as a scholarly reference.
|
|
|
Post by inlovewithcrow on Feb 8, 2011 12:37:19 GMT -5
Interesting essay, but I was puzzled by the section in which the author says "intertextuality" comes from either X or Y source. I thought it was a standard reader response term, along with contratextuality and all those other versions of textuality I used to have a list of back when. I think it predates the sources she gives. Anyhoo.
Also, I think something was missed when (and it sounded snarky to me) the author linked points out that some jokes came from the writers' personal lives and implied that this in a sense cheats the "getting it" process and requires the internet (or Amazing Colossal Ep Guide) to explain (and thus we create our in-group community blah blah, she says in finding the explanations for such obscure jokes). I can think of one example where this isn't true (and there are likely others): Bridgit's reference to the list of numbers for the babysitter, "and the Moronis next door." I got the joke without knowing the Moronis, and it works as a joke because comedy works through specificity. (Comedy also works well with lists of three, the third thing being a surprise, and BBI used that technique a good deal, too.) "And the next door neighbors" instead of "The Moronis" works better for someone seeking easy accessibility, and I suppose it cheats the intratextual implied contract with viewer less (that this author seems to think exists), but it ain't funny. The Moronis are specific, and they have a funny name to those of us not in Italy ("The Smiths" though specific wouldn't have worked), and thus the line is funny.
I suppose this is the risk of academic analysis of comedy--by the time the author says his/her bit, and I respond to it above, every last drop of ha-ha has been drained from the Moronis joke. But I like academic analysis of this sort in small doses, perhaps because I excelled at it in grad school. I don't think it adds anything important to the world. Indeed, little of the Academy does except real/hard science and engineering, and in a sense, this sort of esoteric language you find in such essays was created to make the English Department (an outgrowth of 19th century woman's book clubs, horreurs) legitimate-sounding in that place where actual science gets done. Nevertheless, I don't resent its presence in the world. IT doesn't do any good, but at least it does no harm.
Still, it's far better to laugh with MST3K than to analyze it. If I were a university librarian with that level of control over my budget, I'd get the book.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Feb 8, 2011 18:11:57 GMT -5
i dunno, if i was doing scholarly research on mst3k i'd probably focus more on that, and less on the idea that misties are on some sort of neo-marxist collective project to critique and oppose intellectually bankrupt pop culture, cuz i just don't think it's the case, it's more complicated than that. Spot on. That resurrection of lost artifacts is something substantial, especially given how MST/Rifftrax/CT has renewed interest in a lot of movies like Manos, The Room, Santa Claus (at least in America) that they wouldn't otherwise have had. Despite the pretense that M/J&tB are being tortured by these movies, what's really happening is that the show somehow feeds on the whole idea of being a "cult" fan, enjoying something in alternate ways than just straight watching. Riffing isn't critique. And, besides, you've got to be pretty heavily invested in pop culture, not "resistant" to it, in order to enjoy the show. (Although I wonder how that changes with Rifftrax and riffing on Hollywood successes rather than the things left behind.)
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Feb 9, 2011 15:31:00 GMT -5
i dunno, if i was doing scholarly research on mst3k i'd probably focus more on that, and less on the idea that misties are on some sort of neo-marxist collective project to critique and oppose intellectually bankrupt pop culture, cuz i just don't think it's the case, it's more complicated than that. Spot on. That resurrection of lost artifacts is something substantial, especially given how MST/Rifftrax/CT has renewed interest in a lot of movies like Manos, The Room, Santa Claus (at least in America) that they wouldn't otherwise have had. Despite the pretense that M/J&tB are being tortured by these movies, what's really happening is that the show somehow feeds on the whole idea of being a "cult" fan, enjoying something in alternate ways than just straight watching. Riffing isn't critique. And, besides, you've got to be pretty heavily invested in pop culture, not "resistant" to it, in order to enjoy the show. (Although I wonder how that changes with Rifftrax and riffing on Hollywood successes rather than the things left behind.) thanks! i was taken a little aback when rifftrax started doing mainstream/big budget movies, because i'd always thought dredging up obscure old movies to riff was part of the point. but then the BBs actually say the only reason they didn't do mainstream movies was A. at first they were beholden to what was in the KTMA movie library, and B. later on when they had to worry about securing the rights it was easier to get the rights to obscure crap. totally good point, too, about having to be invested in popcult to enjoy mst3k. i'd always thought about the other academic article i've seen about mst3k, the notorious "the shame of mystery science theater," that the author puts down mst3k for, among other things, substituting the bots' riffing for the (presumably internal) monologue of the people watching the movie at home. the implication being that mst3k wants to do the reacting to and thinking about the movie FOR you, leaving you to just sit and passively watch without a thought in your head. (the author HATED mst3k...) to me that was an interesting critique in the specific ways in which it's wrong, because watching mst3k is actually NOT passive or easy, it's something i think you do have to practice a bit at to do well, because it's just not intuitive to have to keep track of these two parallel narratives, the linear movie and then the ongoing nonlinear comments. and yet part of the show's popularity is that it DOES mimic the internal monologue we all have with ourselves when watching a movie, and puts it on the screen. so in a sense the author of "shame of mst3k" is right in his criticism, he's just not right in saying it reflects badly on the show. i also think mst3k was instrumental in creating the shift in the zeitgeist that led to DVD commentary tracks. i don't think they get enough credit for sorta adding this idea of running movie commentary to the cultural palette, but i'm not sure that DVD commentary tracks would ever have been invented had it not been for mst3k. that's the sort of stuff i'd wanna see theorized about vis-a-vis mst3k, i think there's a LOT of room for good scholarship about mst3k and, in fact, im surprised there's not more of it. "shame of mst3k" and the book in the OP are the only two that i'm aware of, though i dabbled with it in grad school. (i got a master's in cultural studies, essentially, about 15 years ago and it wasn't long after i discovered mst3k, so i'd mention it in papers and so forth from time to time.) i actually wanted to write a book, sorta semi-scholarly, telling the history of post-war america entirely through the mst3k movies. one of these days i may still finish that.
|
|
|
Post by christmas on Feb 9, 2011 16:00:27 GMT -5
i also think mst3k was instrumental in creating the shift in the zeitgeist that led to DVD commentary tracks. i don't think they get enough credit for sorta adding this idea of running movie commentary to the cultural palette, but i'm not sure that DVD commentary tracks would ever have been invented had it not been for mst3k. you make a wonderful point, and I hate to be this guy, but I just want to point out that the commentary track was actually invented in 1984 by the Criterion Collection with their release of King Kong on laserdisc. Now I should be off. I need to write a scholarly paper about how wonderful I am for knowing that. Too-da-loo, dum dums! (CUT TO: Me, walking away from the message board. When I turn my back, it's revealed my doctorate in Home Video is framed and hanging from a nail driven into my spine. As I walk past a bookshelf containing my collection of Video Watchdog magazines, it topples over on top of me, rendering me unconscious. I lay motionless. Could this be the end of message board user "Christmas"? TO BE CONTINUED...)
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Feb 9, 2011 17:35:41 GMT -5
Spot on. That resurrection of lost artifacts is something substantial, especially given how MST/Rifftrax/CT has renewed interest in a lot of movies like Manos, The Room, Santa Claus (at least in America) that they wouldn't otherwise have had. Despite the pretense that M/J&tB are being tortured by these movies, what's really happening is that the show somehow feeds on the whole idea of being a "cult" fan, enjoying something in alternate ways than just straight watching. Riffing isn't critique. And, besides, you've got to be pretty heavily invested in pop culture, not "resistant" to it, in order to enjoy the show. (Although I wonder how that changes with Rifftrax and riffing on Hollywood successes rather than the things left behind.) thanks! i was taken a little aback when rifftrax started doing mainstream/big budget movies, because i'd always thought dredging up obscure old movies to riff was part of the point. but then the BBs actually say the only reason they didn't do mainstream movies was A. at first they were beholden to what was in the KTMA movie library, and B. later on when they had to worry about securing the rights it was easier to get the rights to obscure crap. totally good point, too, about having to be invested in popcult to enjoy mst3k. i'd always thought about the other academic article i've seen about mst3k, the notorious "the shame of mystery science theater," that the author puts down mst3k for, among other things, substituting the bots' riffing for the (presumably internal) monologue of the people watching the movie at home. the implication being that mst3k wants to do the reacting to and thinking about the movie FOR you, leaving you to just sit and passively watch without a thought in your head. (the author HATED mst3k...) to me that was an interesting critique in the specific ways in which it's wrong, because watching mst3k is actually NOT passive or easy, it's something i think you do have to practice a bit at to do well, because it's just not intuitive to have to keep track of these two parallel narratives, the linear movie and then the ongoing nonlinear comments. and yet part of the show's popularity is that it DOES mimic the internal monologue we all have with ourselves when watching a movie, and puts it on the screen. so in a sense the author of "shame of mst3k" is right in his criticism, he's just not right in saying it reflects badly on the show. i also think mst3k was instrumental in creating the shift in the zeitgeist that led to DVD commentary tracks. i don't think they get enough credit for sorta adding this idea of running movie commentary to the cultural palette, but i'm not sure that DVD commentary tracks would ever have been invented had it not been for mst3k. that's the sort of stuff i'd wanna see theorized about vis-a-vis mst3k, i think there's a LOT of room for good scholarship about mst3k and, in fact, im surprised there's not more of it. "shame of mst3k" and the book in the OP are the only two that i'm aware of, though i dabbled with it in grad school. (i got a master's in cultural studies, essentially, about 15 years ago and it wasn't long after i discovered mst3k, so i'd mention it in papers and so forth from time to time.) i actually wanted to write a book, sorta semi-scholarly, telling the history of post-war america entirely through the mst3k movies. one of these days i may still finish that. That sounds like an awesome book. I'd certainly read it. I emailed the editor of this volume, and he said there's another one coming out as well, but it's not as far along as his. There have been maybe seven or eight articles on it a number of journals that can actually (or almost) count as "scholarly." But you're right that most of them are either negative or take the easy "criticizing pop culture" route. One of the weirdest is a feminist "reading" of MST that reads a lot like a standard grad school seminar paper...I have a feeling some grad student just got lucky when they had to submit their seminar paper as part of the course, as I often had to do. I've always thought that the show was ripe for that little sub-genre of "fan studies" that's been growing in cultural studies lately. The show itself seems like something that doesn't just have a cult fanbase but is also itself written as if it were by fans of the movies but with professional production. How much random knowledge did the Brains have to dig up about Coleman Francis or all the weird pop culture things they did, for example, apart from just having a huge cache of non-info at their fingertips? The kind of weird wiki/encyclopedia knowledge that they have and that most fans draw on is a way of engaging with pop culture that most academics don't really address. I mean, it usually just becomes pop culture bashing OR you have academics treating TV shows/movies/whatever like they do traditional high art, doing full on literary analysis. But MST is something altogether different, methinks. I know a lot of academics who still remember the show fondly, even if they aren't fans. I think they naturally gravitate to things that feel like commentary since that's what they do for a living.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Feb 10, 2011 13:56:04 GMT -5
oo, i'd like to read the feminist reading of mst! i almost think i'd like it better if it's roiling and full of rage. that was one of the criticisms i remember from "shame of mst3k," he complains about how mike and both the bots are all male... "what are we to make of the fact that the woman aboard the MST3K spacceship is a maternal vacuum cleaner with no arms? MST3K is obsessed with sexuality and afraid of it. The absence of women highlights the show's treehouse psychology." i actually love that article because the criticisms are so weird and offbase. mst3k, afraid of sexuality? sure, i guess. i don't really know what that even means. lol. the "treehouse psychology" thing actually is sorta true, but given that the show's premise is modeled largely out of joel's childhood experiences, it's kinda SUPPOSED to have a treehouse psychology. a lot of women participate in the writing so it would be tough to claim that it's some sort of sexist woman-free zone but i'd be interested in seeing someone try to make that argument. it HAS occurred to me that they tend to make the women in the movies be airheaded a bit disproportionately (think the woman who thought a camera was a lawnmower in "deadly bees"), but on the other hand pearl forrester is a pretty empowered character, with a real-world body type. i dunno, it'd be interesting to see what such an article came up with, pro and con. i actually think there might be a thread on this article already but just in case, here's a link to "shame of mst3k." it's actually an article i love and have read many times. i dunno, it should fill me with rage because the guy just HATES mst3k, he hates everything about it and he hates me for even watching it. but it just doesn't. i think because most of the reasons he hates mst3k kinda just miss the point of the show. (like the treehouse psychology thing, or that he thinks the best brains actually disdain this movies and have an "anti-cinema" agenda.) and the way he misses the point of the show remind me why i love the show so much. (mainly i think the thing is the author loved mario bava so he got all hacked off when they did danger diabolik.) anyhoo... www.hermenaut.com/a152.shtml
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Feb 10, 2011 14:00:47 GMT -5
also, it's kinda a testament to mst3k that it could inspire such an enormous amount of pain and suffering like it did to fujiwara. i like that mst3k hurt him, and would like for it to go on hurting him.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Feb 10, 2011 14:12:58 GMT -5
duh, not only is there a thread on fujiwara's article, but i posted on it no more than three months ago or so. the sixties were a bit too good to me, i guess.
|
|
|
Post by mrmeadows on Feb 10, 2011 14:57:47 GMT -5
This Fujiwara guy's last aricle appears to be a review of Paul Thomas Anderson's MAGNOLIA, which he labels as "pretentious". He obviously has never read his own material.
|
|