Several sick birds; one stone

[Andrew Dinn]

MASCARO at HUMnet.UCLA.EDU writes:

> o I was struck by Jester's VINELAND remark of a  couple days ago, to whit: 

>   > In my opinion, there is almost TOO MUCH TV in the novel.  

>   I have been pondering this TV/VL thing for a while, frustrated
>   specifically by those parenthetical dates for every show mentioned.
>   Something feels out of whack w/ them.  Even the parentheses seem
>   loaded somehow, but I can't figure out what disturbs me about them.
>   Are they like Slothrop's stars in some weird way?  Mapping out
>   temporally something akin to Slothrop's spatial record of Certain
>   Strange Events With Many Dark Implications?  Has anybody looked at
>   them cabbalistically, done the ol' numerology dozens on them?  Just
>   wondering.

I've been reading up on graphic design just now (for a variety of
reasons), a collection of essays from across the board in the field
plus a book on `visual grammar', an interesting notion indeed. Much of
what I have read is critical of `borrowings' - hijackings or co-option
might be closer to the model most of the writers seem to assume -
particularly use of pop/vernacular and recycling of modernist imagery
and typography. You might think that the modernists object to use of
vernacular and the post-modernists to any remaining trace of modernism
but in fact the same people object to both (and it's not clear cut
that anyone involved in the debate is either a pure modernist or
[impure, surely?] post-modernist).  Objection to the use of vernacular
comes from the belief that designers should perpetuate the shock of
the new, not try to pass off the commonplace. Their role is to
construct the visions which everyday folk lack either the time,
inclination, perspective or ability to produce for themselves.
Objections to recycling the past point out that it was never like
that. Images (or text styles) meant then something totally different
to what they mean now. Designers serve to perpetuate and extend a
grand tradition which is more important than they are as individuals.
Both criticisms could easily be levelled at TRP (and have been),
presenting an ersatz WWII or a glamourised 60s post-processed by
modern day values, melding contemporary icons - Godzilla, Ninja, punk
- into a street credible but ultimately vacuous pot-pourii.

Of course, these opinions are just the Beethoven side of the great
debate. A Rossini would argue that images are up for grabs, to have
fun with, combine in whatever form fits the moment. And if the moment,
in the guise of popular perception, sets off down a given road then
you can not only take a ride on the bus, you can also spin the wheel
and use the momentum to swing off at a new tangent. A-and history?
History is nothing more than a road map to be updated and corrected in
line with the changing topography of the current landscape.
Redefining (more disabusing people of than abusing) the old visions is
as necessary a task as building new ones.

So which is TRP, a Beethoven or a Rossini?

Both. And neither. The opposition presented here is misconceived.
Beethoven himself `recycled' history in his symphonies, taking an
existing form and turning it inside out, breaking many of the rules
(and I'll only mention Schoenberg here, but you get the picture). But
Beethoven's 3rd symphony did not destroy Classical form, despite its
near riotous reception. On the contrary it can only be appreciated
fully with reference to Classical form. What it did do was break the
hold the previous form had over people's expectations of music. Showed
them how their musical world was constructed and could be
reconstructed in an altered image (just one?). But he could only
achieve this because Classical form was already understood. His music
only connected because it related to the commonplace (at least to the
limited audience whom economic circumstances gave him
access). Revolution is parasitic on tradition.

So, this brings us back to the original point. What is all that TV
doing in Vineland? Well, for damn sure TRP's not including it for the
same reason that advertisers sell Levis using Sam and Dave or Jimi
Hendrix. He's maybe using it *because* advertisers use Jimi Hendrix to
sell Levis. Vineland is the cracked looking glass of a master. GR used
cinema because cinematic technique was so familiar, so much part of US
(and UK) culture, at least it was familiar until we saw it transmuted
into text by our boy. Ditto for TV. He may not have made as good a job
of this transposition but Vineland is saturated with TV because it
gives TRP room to play with our expectations, restate them in another
key, throw in the odd bum note (doubtless, a minor fourth) just for
kicks and look at the audience wince.

Or, to resume the previous analogy, TRP's on the bus, but he's holding
the map upside down and giving the driver the strangest directions.
Perfectly rational behaviour in the circumstances:

    living inside the system is like being on a bus driven by a madman

> o Everybody new to the list gets flamed right off.  It's great.
>   I've been flamed by the best (hag--and--andrew); perhaps we should
>   elect someone designated flamer?

It's a conspiracy, right?


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.