The Lure of Opulent Desolation

[Senator Jack]

I suspect I'm BK's disappointment here :eusa_doh: , but...but my defense is that he may be giving too much credit to American writers, taking his intelligence and applying it to a writer that had no intention of writing into the piece any subtext all. And here I'm reminded of a tome published about twenty years ago about 1950s sci-fi films all being allegories for the Cold War. When Filmfax magazine asked the writer of The Brain From Planet Arous about the connection, he replied something to the effect of 'Really? i thought I was just writing a picture about a brain that wanted to take over the world.'

BK, you lived here, what, four years? You should know American writers aren't that crafty. They dash off crap on the laptop and collect their checks. Research and thought process are kept to a minimum.

Kind regards,

Jack

 

[Senator Jack]

AND...Okay, I have to add more. The way she waffles on her thinking is so damn typical of metropolitan American women born in the 1960s. They were kids in an age when the woman was supposed to find her Prince Charming, have children, and become a homemaker, but they came of age in a time when all that was challenged. If a woman was born in 64 to 66, that means she was graduated from high school in 82 to 84, making her part of the very first generation pressured by Steinham, Friedan, et al to cast off those old ideals. Oh, they're a confused lot, all right. Schizophrenic in way, wanting to be the great mother and career woman but turning out to be neither. If I dismissed the writer's argument all too quickly, it's only because over the last twenty years I've heard it a thousand times before.

Regards again,

Jack

 

[reetpleat]

AND...Okay, I have to add more. The way she waffles on her thinking is so damn typical of metropolitan American women born in the 1960s. They were kids in an age when the woman was supposed to find her Prince Charming, have children, and become a homemaker, but they came of age in a time when all that was challenged. If a woman was born in 64 to 66, that means she was graduated from high school in 82 to 84, making her part of the very first generation pressured by Steinham, Friedan, et al to cast off those old ideals. Oh, they're a confused lot, all right. Schizophrenic in way, wanting to be the great mother and career woman but turning out to be neither. If I dismissed the writer's argument all too quickly, it's only because over the last twenty years I've heard it a thousand times before.

Regards again,

Jack

I see your point, but while it is true that we went through a major upheavel in thinking on women's roles, and we are also seeing one on men's roles that we struggle with, it is not fair to criticize a writer who is commentiing on it as being confused.

She is pointing out the issue, which is the first step to coming to terms with it. Not a particularly unique or original thought, but a reasonable angle to approach a review of the new movie and mad Men.

Speaing of which, is this new movie about the seedy underbelly that goes on in the seemingly perfect suburbs? I thought that idea was new and interesting in teh fifties and sixties. But is it relevant or intereting now? mad men is not that exactly. But to do a movie on it from a book written in the late sixties seems pointless.

I guess American Beauty managed to wring a little new insight out of the ennui of the suburbs, but not much.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

AND...Okay, I have to add more. The way she waffles on her thinking is so damn typical of metropolitan American women born in the 1960s. They were kids in an age when the woman was supposed to find her Prince Charming, have children, and become a homemaker, but they came of age in a time when all that was challenged. If a woman was born in 64 to 66, that means she was graduated from high school in 82 to 84, making her part of the very first generation pressured by Steinham, Friedan, et al to cast off those old ideals. Oh, they're a confused lot, all right. Schizophrenic in way, wanting to be the great mother and career woman but turning out to be neither. If I dismissed the writer's argument all too quickly, it's only because over the last twenty years I've heard it a thousand times before.

Regards again,

Jack

I wish she would have taken a confident stand and presented her own opinion in a clear and concise manner rather than obfuscating it with wishy washy pedantic tripe. The article reads like a stream of consciousness to me.

 

[ShoreRoadLady]

I wish she would have taken a confident stand and presented her own opinion in a clear and concise manner rather than obfuscating it with wishy washy pedantic tripe. The article reads like a stream of consciousness to me.

That's the point I was trying to make: she, herself, is confused. Given that she mentions watching "Mad Men" as part of her initial fascination with the stereotypes of the 50s-60s, I don't think she's at the point where she *can* form a definite opinion.

 

[Fletch]

I wish she would have taken a confident stand and presented her own opinion in a clear and concise manner rather than obfuscating it with wishy washy pedantic tripe. The article reads like a stream of consciousness to me.

That's called personalizing your topic. Making it touchy-feely, showing you care.

It also helps to be just that little bit obfuscatory and equivocal. Your editors were mostly raised on postmodernism, where meaning was something rare and hard-earned.

See Sen. Jack's comment upthread about modern American writers:

They dash off crap on the laptop and collect their checks. Research and thought process are kept to a minimum.

That's known as professionalism these days. Any more sophisticated brainwork and your only audience is academics, and you'd better be one of them already - or at least know and respect the current cut of thought enough to gull them.

This, again, is a very American idea. Cultural commentary is something we know we need, but don't really believe in. So it had better be either dumb simple, so as to sell product and offend nobody, or hellishly complex, to keep up the need for decoders and interpreters.

 

[I'mSuzyParker]

AND.... Oh, they're a confused lot, all right. Schizophrenic in way, wanting to be the great mother and career woman but turning out to be neither.
Jack

Agreed.. 100% - that was my point about how no matter what hat a woman wears today she has to justify her choice. Was being a woman in the 50s really that bad? I didn't come around until two decades later. But, any women who were there at the time, please speak up. Was it all moonlight and pearls or insipid, vapid drivel or a little bit of both, like today? I really would like to know.

 

[carter]

I agree with the Baron

"....Our cultural representations of them are punishing...."
I believe this sentence represents the author's opinion. It represents, perhaps, the entirety of her opinion in this article, which seems to question the reader(s). I find the article to be a call to self-examination, not refutation.

I read the article, read the thread, and reread the article.

I do not find her prose to be murky or judgemental. I find it to be questioning of current thought. I disagree with Senator Jack as I find the subtext of the article to be the question of why, "Our cultural representations of them are punishing".

If anything, the author may have erred in supposing that subtle and nuanced prose would be understood by her readers.

 

[reetpleat]

That's called personalizing your topic. Making it touchy-feely, showing you care.

It also helps to be just that little bit obfuscatory and equivocal. Your editors were mostly raised on postmodernism, where meaning was something rare and hard-earned.

See Sen. Jack's comment upthread about modern American writers:
That's known as professionalism these days. Any more sophisticated brainwork and your only audience is academics, and you'd better be one of them already - or at least know and respect the current cut of thought enough to gull them.

This, again, is a very American idea. Cultural commentary is something we know we need, but don't really believe in. So it had better be either dumb simple, so as to sell product and offend nobody, or hellishly complex, to keep up the need for decoders and interpreters.

I think it is a little unfair. Sure, she could write a "that's my opinion" article. and it might be interesting. But she chose to write a "we are all pretty confused (okay, excepting the good members of the lounge who are bound to exclude themselves) and here are some reasons why and her is an elaborationo on the ocnfusion it leaves us in.

I find that more interesting, quite frankly. I don't think I would care to read an article on the subject that tells me what I should think of the fifties. It is much too complex for that.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think it is a little unfair. Sure, she could write a "that's my opinion" article. and it might be interesting. But she chose to write a "we are all pretty confused (okay, excepting the good members of the lounge who are bound to exclude themselves) and here are some reasons why and her is an elaborationo on the ocnfusion it leaves us in.

I find that more interesting, quite frankly. I don't think I would care to read an article on the subject that tells me what I should think of the fifties. It is much too complex for that.

I think one of the unforturnate tendencies of social commentators today is the tendency to assume they have the right to speak for their whole generation -- WE experienced this, WE believed that, etc. etc. etc, and I think she fell into that trap in this piece, whether or not that was her intention. It may be *her* culture that believes these things, but I'm probably not too many years older than she is, and what she's talking about sure isn't *my* culture.

There was a good discussion in the Generation X/Y/Z/whatever-it-was thread about the dangers of making that kind of assumption -- any time you start generalizing about "typical experiences," you end up leaving out whole classes of people simply because they don't fit your thesis.

 

[reetpleat]

I think one of the unforturnate tendencies of social commentators today is the tendency to assume they have the right to speak for their whole generation -- WE experienced this, WE believed that, etc. etc. etc, and I think she fell into that trap in this piece, whether or not that was her intention. It may be *her* culture that believes these things, but I'm probably not too many years older than she is, and what she's talking about sure isn't *my* culture.

There was a good discussion in the Generation X/Y/Z/whatever-it-was thread about the dangers of making that kind of assumption -- any time you start generalizing about "typical experiences," you end up leaving out whole classes of people simply because they don't fit your thesis.

I think you are right that she is generaliziing, but all writing is. You are assuming that what you have to say or share is going to ring true to a certain group of readers. the more it rings true for, the better writer you probably are as you approach universal truths. I would be quite surprised if most writers spoke to your experience because you are unique and tend to stand outside the norm.

I think it is unfair to criticize a writer for not matching your experience. You have a right to not like her piece or all of her writing, but she must speak for enough people that she is run in a major media source. I think she speaks for a lot of people in discussing the confusion of modern times, especially when held up against a myth that was then and now sold to us as reality. if enough people do not share her experience, and her generalization is way off, she will not last long as a writer. her readers are nto those that want to learn about others, it is those who wish to reflect on themselves.

I think it is too common for people to stat crying "generalization" as if it is a dirty word. All human thought is categorizing, generalizing and drawing distinctions. We would be lost without our ability to find commonalities amongst people, thinks or whatever. While there is a place for writers who just write "their experience" there certainly is a place for those who wish to find common general experiences, and those who do it well, are recognized as great commentators and writers.

 

[shortbow]

Ok. As one of those who have been patronized and accused of un-critical thinking, an inability to grasp nuance or irony and missing the point altogether, I went back and read the article as published.

The fancy literary vehicles she is trying to use to get her point across do not work well because she is unskilled in their use. She also needs a great deal more grounding in near-term social history and urban anthropology. In the main though what she is revealing in her piece is a deep personal ambivalence and confusion about her own psycho-spiritual place in the world, as well as hearsay claptrap mired in the modern version of truth, which is a miasma of mis-informed myth and wishful thinking bequeathed to us by the One Parent, TV.

On a personal note, I do take umbrage at being patronized and talked down to by folks who assume that they are more intelligent, more perceptive, more educated and more skilled than myself. A feller never knows who he's talking to, so when all else fails try good manners and respect.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Speaking of which, is this new movie about the seedy underbelly that goes on in the seemingly perfect suburbs? I thought that idea was new and interesting in teh fifties and sixties. But is it relevant or intereting now? mad men is not that exactly. But to do a movie on it from a book written in the late sixties seems pointless.

I'm hoping it's going to be like the book; if so it will be a challenging film. It was published in 1961 and set in 1955. Here from Hitchens' review:

"The ahievement of … Revolutionary Road was to anatomise the ills and woes of suburbia while simultaneously satirizing those suburbanites and others who thought that they themselves were too good for the 'burbs"

…

"If Yates had one talent above all it was for conveying the feeling of disappointment and anticlimax, heavily infused with the sort of embarassment that amounts to humiliation. The many phony and bogus ways in which people conceal … moments of truth from themselves and from each other give Yates his unceasing opportunities to create scenes of excruciating misery. How can people bear to suffer so much, one keeps wanting to ask, when no great cause is at stake?"

bk

 

[PrettySquareGal]

On a personal note, I do take umbrage at being patronized and talked down to by folks who assume that they are more intelligent, more perceptive, more educated and more skilled than myself. A feller never knows who he's talking to, so when all else fails try good manners and respect.

I did take umbrage at first, too until I reminded myself that those lacking in those manners you mention are not very socially intelligent, or may believe themselves exempt. If you and I are to be cast as philistines, at least we are polite.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

she must speak for enough people that she is run in a major media source.

I don't know if that's true.

 

[Foofoogal]

In the main though what she is revealing in her piece is a deep personal ambivalence and confusion about her own psycho-spiritual place in the world, as well as hearsay claptrap mired in the modern version of truth, which is a miasma of mis-informed myth and wishful thinking bequeathed to us by the One Parent, TV.

I totally agree with your assessment.

 

[59Lark]

life choices.

I am probably off the mark, but there is one area, the idea that one cannot afford to live like that on one income thats its impossible. The idea of having all these things and doing all these things is new. My parents were married in 1948, their farmhouse was mistaken for an abandoned house one night by hobos. So obviously it didnt look so great, they grew all their own food and lived cheap, and myself their last child now have a family of two kids and a wife. We live on one income, our newer car is 20 years old, my van is now ten years old, our house is from 1925. Thank god, we have free health care, in Canada, we are self employed and work from home, store on the side of the house. We are the only couple in our church that live on one income. We seem to have more in common today with our mennonite customers than the other people here in our city. For all our lack of things and let me tell you, we still get our selves in debt and spoil our kids for xmas, we are weak there. The miracle for all weird live style we know are kids so much more than our counterparts and they are good kids. Dont be sheep , dare to be different it will make a difference for the kids. 59Larkfftopic:

 

[Senator Jack]

Originally Posted by reetpleat
she must speak for enough people that she is run in a major media source.

With periodicals like The Times and The New Yorker, you can change 'speak for' to 'know' and we'd have a more likely situation.

The article reads like a stream of consciousness to me.

I also thought that the case - a fifteen-minute frenzy of thoughts put to paper and never revised - and I'm not so sure an Op-Ed column is best suited for the style; your average NYT reader on the subway to work has little time to sort out the writer's intentions. I could be prejudiced though as I've never been much for SOC in the first place, and I think only a handful of writers have actually mastered it at all. Great when it works, horrible when it doesn't. Though I think Capote was rough on him, he did say of Kerouac, 'That's not writing. That's typing,' and I feel the same about many SOC writers. Perhaps that's what opinion pieces are supposed to be these days: offer a jumble of antipodal thoughts with no clear opinion, sit back, and let the readers keep clicking on the 'comments' section to drive up web hits. As BK noted, she might have only been trying to convey her confusion, but then why this at the end:

That’s where the pleasure comes in. No matter how lost we are, no matter how confused, no matter how foolish we feel, we can judge ourselves the winners.

There's no getting around her schadenfreude, that she's takes pleasure in reading about/watching the supposed miseries of these people not as drama but as a method of self-aggrandizement.

Finally, to clarify my position, I'm not offended or upset by the article for her opinion on the culture; I'm offended as a reader who expects a writer to actually know the intricacies of a culture before dashing off a column about it. Akin to racism and sexism, we can call this 'tempism', an offhand bashing of a peoples based purely on their existence in time. Would she write a similar column expressing confusion about Italians after watching The Sopranos? It may just be a bit unfair to judge an entire culture based on stereotypes depicted in film and television.

Regards,

Jack

 

[PrettySquareGal]

There's no getting around her schadenfreude, that she's takes pleasure in reading about/watching the supposed miseries of these people not as drama but as a method of self-aggrandizement.

Yep. She finds such projected desolation alluring, based upon her chosen title of this series of sentences she places on people.

 

[Senator Jack]

OR...is she trying to be facetious with that last line, trying to turn the tables on the viewers who are taking joy in seeing their misery, make them think about why they actually enjoy the show? Could be, and then I'd have to give her credit, but if she is being Swiftian, I don't think she's made a very good job of it. It's been a long time since I read A Modest Proposal, but I don't recall Swift vacillating like she does.

Regards,

Jack