Skip to main content

An Objection to Merchants of Cool

I generally found Merchants of Cool to be quite insightful, but on one point I found it rather hyperbolic. One of the experts interviewed as part of the documentary compared American teens to Africa and the corporations marketing to them to European imperialists. The essential problem with this analogy is that modern teens can choose not to be exploited. The inhabitants of Africa could not simply decide to not be affected by Western conquest, but to a degree we can choose to do exactly that. The mook will always exist as a stereotype in media marketed to teenagers, but I can (and do) choose not to watch that media. (In my case this really isn't even that difficult, as I find the kind of media inhabited by mooks to be quite boring). Likewise, the fact that what is fashionable is chosen by a few large corporations doesn't really matter to someone (like me) whose clothing decisions don't factor in what's "cool" on any given day. It's certainly possible to be exploited by the corporate advertising juggernaut (and many teens are) but it's also possible to escape from it. Most of the entertainment media I consume are webcomics, podcasts, Youtube videos, etc. which have very little direct influence from large corporations. Even when I do watch movies or TV shows, I deliberately avoid those that perpetuate the stereotypes created by companies in their quest to define teen culture. In short, we as the consumers do have the ability to defend ourselves from the commercialization of culture (and the class for which I'm writing this is a significant help in that regard), and it is our choice whether or not we exercise this option. We are being exploited, but it is entirely within our power to avoid this exploitation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It's Not Fantasy, It's "Magical Realism"

As you probably remember (if you're in Mr. Starace's class at least), Ms. Heitz semi-recently gave us  this article  explaining what magical realism is and how it differs from fantasy. As I read it, I became more and more irritated, finally deciding that I needed to write something demonstrating how it is emblematic of a significant problem in how those who analyze literature view certain genres. Luckily, I have a blog where there is a possibility that someone might actually read my rant on the subject, so here are my thoughts on why magical realism is not a distinct literary genre, but a category of fantasy literature. Literary critics, wanting to feel more discerning than the average reader, are loath to ascribe literary merit to popular "genre fiction": fantasy, science fiction, mystery, horror, etc. They were thus presented with a conundrum when a new style of writing arose in Latin America. It was full of supernatural elements, and thus fit the standard defi...

A Song of Ice and Fire: Storytelling as Worldbuilding

This post is part of a series which I hope to write in the relatively near future, documenting pieces of entertainment media which I currently view as significant influences on the way I view what makes a story good. Beyond simply serving as writing practice, the purpose of these is largely so that in future years I can look back and laugh at the things I thought were so important when I was in high school (or be shocked by my prognosticative powers, I suppose, though that seems less likely). I'm putting the series here for the moment because it fits in fairly well with some of the media blog posts I did for Mr. Starace and doing so reduces the number of places I'll need to look to find my past writings in the future. Anyway, on to A Song of Ice and Fire (which [just in case someone else is reading this] is the low-magic fantasy epic by George R. R. Martin which was adapted into the HBO show Game of Thrones. ) The primary reason why A Song of Ice and Fire (which I will hence...

How Not to Make an Audience Care

I recently watched Thor: Ragnarok , the latest in Marvel's seemingly endless torrent of superhero comedy/action movies. While I generally enjoyed it (at least compared to other films in the same genre), I found myself rather bored during many of the scenes which were intended to be the most dramatic. The movie puts an enormous amount of effort into epic music, gratuitous explosions, and intricately animated fight sequences, but many of its action scenes just felt like something to be waited through until something more interesting happened. In fact, I think you could cut out a solid 10 minutes of absurdly acrobatic duels and massacring of minions and the film would't actually lose anything of value. Now, I should say that I am not bored by all action scenes. For example, Mad Max: Fury Road  managed managed to keep me on the edge of my seat, and that movie is probably around 50% giant explosions. So what exactly did Thor: Ragnarok lack? After a fair amount of thought, I have...