Literacy (is Re: Harry Potter)

[Dave Monroe]

Sexism, racism, et al. "new"?  Hardly ... but I guess I would note that television
(and radio) can be, are, particularly relentless transmitters, reproducers of such
things, operating "24/7," as these kids today put it (or so I'm told).   And, as
big a fan of teevee, esp. of "The Simpsons" (although I do think it's being
overtaken by "Futurama" and "King of the Hill" these days), as I am, even yr more
self-reflexive, critically aware shows aren't necessarily going to be taken as such
(I think there were more than a few people out there truly sympathetic to Archie
Bunker, or, at any rate, to what he espoused, no matter how clearly Norman
Lear--or, rather, his screenwriters--were critiquing his right-thinkin'
Americanisms).   Indeed, there's a certain, I don't know, mithraditism, a certain
weakening of effect, affect, about such "postmodern" critiques (at least, though
not only) when let loose in popular culture that tends to take the edge off them,
build up resistance to them.  I mean, in many ways, "Beavis and Butthead" was one
of the most subversive, critically aware shows on (mianstream) television, but it
also tended to validate, affirm, perhaps even encourage, a certain passivity (to
say the least), a certain couch potatoism, at best, and a(n uncritical or
otherwise) reproduction of certain stupidities, at worst.  "I know this is wrong,
but ..." followed by that "postmodern" wink is an all too common response, result,
whatever.  Too easy a way out, and hardly "self-reflexive,' much less "critical."
These kids today, well ... well, as, perhaps, always, there are better and there
are worse.  I don't see it much going either way, although, as you note, electronic
communications are a pervasive and effective way to tip the scales--however, I'd
add, in either direction.  I don't want to get all anecdotal, but, well, let's just
say I deal with quite a few of the young people on a daily basuis, in a variety of
situations, and I see plenty of either case ...

jbor wrote:

> > "teach children to watch TV? Ho
> > ho ho ...".  God forbid they'd be able to identify, problematize, resist,
> > even, say, the commericialization, sexism, racism, ageism, you name it, which
> > serves as the background noise of daily live these days
>
> Are you suggesting that these are new phenomena in the media (let alone art,
> literature, "daily life")? Actually, a postmodern tv show like 'The
> Simpsons' actually performs this type of self-deconstructive, didactic
> function -- "unpacking, deconstructing, whatever, all those messages
> coming in". There's no danger that kids nowadays'll simply aspire to become
> Ozzie and Harriet when they grow up: they're not so easily fooled. I also
> think that the definition of "literacy" being bandied about is a little
> narrow. Children's (tele)visual literacy skills and computer literacy skills
> possibly outstrip those of their parents in many cases. Cultural literacy is
> another domain where the younger generation have it over us imo.
>
> > Which is not
> > to say DON'T slip 'em the Shakespeare
>
> They tend to enjoy the postmodern 'Romeo and Juliet' (i.e. Luhrman's), and
> Polanski's 'Macbeth', which are better than nothing.
>
> best
>
> ----------
> >From: "Dave Monroe" <monroe at mpm.edu>
> >To: Terrance <Lycidas at worldnet.att.net>
> >Subject: Re: Harry Potter
> >Date: Wed, Jul 5, 2000, 11:43 AM
> >