Literature… what?

Because I fear the judgment of the literati? It is a fear that plagues all of us – the horrifying moment we run into an ex-lover carrying a copy of a tabloid newspaper or magazine: the intellectual equivalent of stained pyjama pants and askew hair.

Ahhh, yes, the fear of judgement: Used by pathetic bourgeois assholes to legitimate their narcissisms. Marieke Hardy hints at the real problem with literature in that very few people care. This is the fear of judgement of judgement. The spectre of commodified pulp haunts every judgement of ‘good writing’. Hardy quotes some bloke:

As he writes on his blog, so beautifully: “Words are your birthright. Unlike music, painting, dance and raffia work, you don’t have to be taught any part of language or buy any equipment to use it. Don’t be afraid of it, don’t believe it belongs to anyone else, don’t let anyone bully you into believing that there are rules and secrets of grammar and verbal deployment that you are not privy to. Don’t be humiliated by dinosaurs into thinking yourself inferior because you can’t spell broccoli or moccasins. Just let the words fly from your lips and your pen.”

You don’t have to be taught any part of language? Bullshit. Buy any equipment to use it? Nice tweet, bourgie peanut. So it may have a ‘beautiful’ liberal humanist sentiment, if you believe such crap, but the writing is cliched derivative shit that has been said many times by every single boosterist of so-called ‘new media’. Here is my version: Don’t just write something. Because ‘just write something’ is the literary equivalent of the fucking Nike slogan.
Instead, Hardy should have been critical, or at least a realist, and call it how it is. Most writing on the internet is deplorable. All it allows you to do is follow your own interests as a reader. Therefore, it is not the beauty that can be expressed through writing that should be championed (ala that unintentionally neo-Kantian peanut she quoted), but the accessibility (of whatever) that is liberating. Hence, the contradiction. Hardy wants to democratise the judgemental conservative impulse of literature, but she valorises the medium of mediocrity instead.

Epic fail.

/angry blog

Becoming Kirk

WTF is the Sydney Morning Herald thinking? This is a terrible review of the new Star Trek movie.

The reviewer offers little actual analysis of the film. What does the film do? Instead he offers obvious opinion about what ‘they’ were trying to do. ‘They’ being the nameless people at Paramount or even ‘Hollywood’ like this:

I think the movie is titled this way because Paramount is trying to reinvent the franchise, just as the Bond series did with Casino Royale. It’s known as a reboot but it’s really a rebottling of old wine, one of Hollywood’s core businesses.

Clearly the reviewer, Paul Byrnes, has an over-appreciation for modernist aesthetics. Rebottled? Fail. The movie can stand alone as a science fiction film, it does not need the rest of the Trek universe to prop it up. Tell me I am wrong.

This young Kirk is far from the level-headed character played by William Shatner (who’s not in the movie). He’s set up to be Spock’s antonym all passion, emotion and action, while the other is all control, logic and brain. It’s mechanical but there’s not much room to change the bedrock of the Trek world.

Maybe because HE IS THE YOUNG KIRK! WTF He is the young Kirk becoming Kirk, but in the diegetic world of the film the temporal order has been disrupted, so the young Kirk has to become Kirk in a DIFFERENT WAY to produce a DIFFERENT KIRK. See what we did there? Miss the point much, movie reviewer?