- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Death of Adulthood in American Culture - AO Scott
Posted on 9/11/14 at 11:56 am
Posted on 9/11/14 at 11:56 am
NY Times, long read but interesting read:
NY Times
AO Scott is usually a smart dude, but I'm not sold on this one.
Mostly, the article tracks this through pop culture (I'm surprised that not once did they bring up the idiot husband movement).
On bro comedies:
On new female-centric shows:
NY Times
AO Scott is usually a smart dude, but I'm not sold on this one.
Mostly, the article tracks this through pop culture (I'm surprised that not once did they bring up the idiot husband movement).
quote:
TV characters are among the allegorical figures of our age, giving individual human shape to our collective anxieties and aspirations. The meanings of “Mad Men” are not very mysterious: The title of the final half season, which airs next spring, will be “The End of an Era.” The most obvious thing about the series’s meticulous, revisionist, present-minded depiction of the past, and for many viewers the most pleasurable, is that it shows an old order collapsing under the weight of internal contradiction and external pressure. From the start, “Mad Men” has, in addition to cataloging bygone vices and fashion choices, traced the erosion, the gradual slide toward obsolescence, of a power structure built on and in service of the prerogatives of white men. The unthinking way Don, Pete, Roger and the rest of them enjoy their position, and the ease with which they abuse it, inspires what has become a familiar kind of ambivalence among cable viewers. Weren’t those guys awful, back then? But weren’t they also kind of cool? We are invited to have our outrage and eat our nostalgia too, to applaud the show’s right-thinking critique of what we love it for glamorizing.
On bro comedies:
quote:
The bro comedy has been, at its worst, a cesspool of nervous homophobia and lazy racial stereotyping. Its postures of revolt tend to exemplify the reactionary habit of pretending that those with the most social power are really beleaguered and oppressed. But their refusal of maturity also invites some critical reflection about just what adulthood is supposed to mean. In the old, classic comedies of the studio era — the screwbally roller coasters of marriage and remarriage, with their dizzying verbiage and sly innuendo — adulthood was a fact. It was inconvertible and burdensome but also full of opportunity. You could drink, smoke, flirt and spend money. The trick was to balance the fulfillment of your wants with the carrying out of your duties.
The desire of the modern comic protagonist, meanwhile, is to wallow in his own immaturity, plumbing its depths and reveling in its pleasures. Sometimes, as in the recent Seth Rogen movie “Neighbors,” he is able to do that within the context of marriage. At other, darker times, say in Adelle Waldman’s literary comedy of manners, “The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P.,” he will remain unattached and promiscuous, though somewhat more guiltily than in his Rothian heyday, with more of a sense of the obligation to be decent. It should be noted that the modern man-boy’s predecessors tended to be a lot meaner than he allows himself to be.
On new female-centric shows:
quote:
Many people forget that the era of the difficult TV men, of Tony and Don and Heisenberg, was also the age of the difficult TV mom, of shows like “Weeds,” “United States of Tara,” “The Big C” and “Nurse Jackie,” which did not inspire the same level of critical rapture partly because they could be tricky to classify. Most of them occupied the half-hour rather than the hourlong format, and they were happy to swerve between pathos and absurdity. Were they sitcoms or soap operas? This ambiguity, and the stubborn critical habit of refusing to take funny shows and family shows as seriously as cop and lawyer sagas, combined to keep them from getting the attention they deserved. But it also proved tremendously fertile.
The cable half-hour, which allows for both the concision of the network sitcom and the freedom to talk dirty and show skin, was also home to “Sex and the City,” in retrospect the most influential television series of the early 21st century. “Sex and the City” put female friendship — sisterhood, to give it an old political inflection — at the center of the action, making it the primary source of humor, feeling and narrative complication. “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” and its spinoffs did this in the 1970s. But Carrie (fig. 7) and her girlfriends could be franker and freer than their precursors, and this made “Sex and the City” the immediate progenitor of “Girls” and “Broad City,” which follow a younger generation of women pursuing romance, money, solidarity and fun in the city.
3
Posted on 9/11/14 at 12:25 pm to Freauxzen
NYT;dr
Posted on 9/11/14 at 12:29 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
“Sex and the City,” in retrospect the most influential television series of the early 21st century.
This guys a riot!
Posted on 9/11/14 at 12:51 pm to constant cough
quote:
NYT;dr
I'm not generally a fan, but Scott's film analysis are usually solid.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 1:50 pm to Freauxzen
Dude sounds like a white knight beta.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 1:55 pm to BOSCEAUX
I agree. Although SOME of his analysis is spot on.
And most of those "female centric" shows are bad. I mean, are we really comparing Veep, New Girl, etc. to Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and The Sopranos and saying it's good for society that quality shows are being replaced by the television equivalent of candy bars?
Posted on 9/11/14 at 2:11 pm to Freauxzen
AO Scott is full of shite.
Really, his complaint is that the cultural universe no longer centers on the taste of upper middle class, private school educated white men from the Northeast: ie, him. He tries to say that he's all in favor of attacking the patriarchy, but only if that attack is in a way he is comfortable with and in the polite methods he supports. His problem is that the rest of us no longer look up to our cultural betters. But let's actually get to his weak-arse argument...
Bull and shite.
Check out a list of the best shows on TV. You'll find plenty of shows with well-developed "adult" characters doing adult things: The Americans, Game of Thrones (sure, set in fantasy Medieval times but still adult patriarchs), Louie, Fargo, The Bridge, and House of Cards. We have powerful matriarchs in some of those shows as well as Parks and Rec, Orange is the New Black, Sons of Anarchy, and Orphan Black. The idea that there are no adults dealing with adult problems is utterly unfounded. The end of Mad Men is no more the end of an era than the end of the Sopranos was, no matter how much the show strokes your elitist ego.
You're a snob, and your reflex action is to look down on people who don't share your highbrow tastes. You probably hated 80s horror movies as exploitative and horrible before you appraised them later in life as true examples of the cinematic form, once they acquired the appropriate critical cachet. I'm going to keep wearing shorts, BTW, because it's still 100 degrees outside.
But the idea that a YA book is beneath you is absurd. Harry Potter is just good yarn, told well. And I'd argue it's "better for you" culturally than a lot of shitty books aimed at adults (Dan Brown, anyone?). Sure your diet ONLY be YA books? Probably not. But I can enjoy both Upstream Color and The Avengers, too. I loved both A Separation AND Pacific Rim. There's been a breakdown in viewing habits, and that's a good thing. For Christ's sake, a graphic novel has won the Pulitzer Prize for literature. Cat's out of the bag.
In summer, yes. You know what? I wouldn't mind some more serious films aimed at adults in the summer. But you know what? 1994 is one of the greatest years in film, and the box office was dominated by adolescent heroism (True Lies, Speed), animated or family fare (Lion King, Santa Clause), and arrested development (The Mask, Dumb and Dumberer). OK, comic book films are a new trend, but they pushed out most action films. Even with those huge movies paying the bills, Hollywood cranked out Pulp Fiction, Shawshank, Leon, Ed Wood, Clerks, Quiz Show, Heavenly Creatures, Shallow Grave, Priest, etc.) It's not one or the other. The big movies pay for the little ones. It's always been this way. And you know what? Some of those big movies are great, too.
It's not dead, so the answers are: no one, no speed at all, completely artificial, no culprit, and unjustified. You're welcome.
This is where he points out his entire thesis is full of shite, and that's without getting into 1950s/60s literature and 70s/80s film. I hate On the Road, too, but come on. The book is over half a century old. Arguing that adulthood is not portrayed in American art is being a tad late to the party.
Talk about false equivalencies. Lenny Bruce was a man-child himself, but how about we compare him to the current top comic, Louis CK? Adam Sandler is more of the progression from Jerry Lee Lewis, and I think that's a step forward. Catch-22 is a movie about the absurdity of war, so how about we compare it to something like Jarhead? And I'm going to get into this... but AO Scott's slander of Judd Apatow is completely unfounded. Let's see what he says:
Apatow has directed four films: This is 40, Funny People, Knocked Up, and 40 Year Old Virgin. Which women fit these descriptions, other than the Leslie Mann character in This is 40, who at least is a well-rounded character who has her own voice? I think 40-Year Old Virgin clearly mocks the man boys in that film, and the sexually adventurous women are not punihsed. Catherine Keener is rewarded with a fundamentally decent husband in Steve Carrell. Her daughter is not shamed for wanting to have sex. Even Elizabeth Banks "freak" turns out to be perfect for Seth Rogan, who ends up dating her without judgment from the film. Apatow also directed Freaks and Geeks, which is largely sympathetic to the parents and even the friggin' gym teacher's POV.
But look at the movies/TV shows he has produced: feminsit fare with strong women like Girls, Bridesmaids, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Anchorman's central conceit is that the woman is the only one who is competent, held back by the patriarchy. Even his bro comedies Superbad and Step Brothers are largely sympathetic to the women. Calling Apatow some purveyor of sexist tripe is nothing short of slander. The guy likes dick jokes. So what?
If I were to make a list of feminists, Beyonce would rank about one millionth. Are you kidding me? In an article full of dumb, unsupportable statements, this one takes the cake. He then goes on to talk up Lena Dunham, who is a high profile feminist, working on a show produced by Judd Apatow.
In short, Scott is raging that we don't respect his opinion anymore. And he's right... we don't.
Really, his complaint is that the cultural universe no longer centers on the taste of upper middle class, private school educated white men from the Northeast: ie, him. He tries to say that he's all in favor of attacking the patriarchy, but only if that attack is in a way he is comfortable with and in the polite methods he supports. His problem is that the rest of us no longer look up to our cultural betters. But let's actually get to his weak-arse argument...
quote:
Their deaths were (and will be) a culmination and a conclusion: Tony, Walter and Don are the last of the patriarchs.
Bull and shite.
Check out a list of the best shows on TV. You'll find plenty of shows with well-developed "adult" characters doing adult things: The Americans, Game of Thrones (sure, set in fantasy Medieval times but still adult patriarchs), Louie, Fargo, The Bridge, and House of Cards. We have powerful matriarchs in some of those shows as well as Parks and Rec, Orange is the New Black, Sons of Anarchy, and Orphan Black. The idea that there are no adults dealing with adult problems is utterly unfounded. The end of Mad Men is no more the end of an era than the end of the Sopranos was, no matter how much the show strokes your elitist ego.
quote:
I will admit to feeling a twinge of disapproval when I see one of my peers clutching a volume of “Harry Potter” or “The Hunger Games.” I’m not necessarily proud of this reaction. As cultural critique, it belongs in the same category as the sneer I can’t quite suppress when I see guys my age (pushing 50) riding skateboards or wearing shorts and flip-flops, or the reflexive arching of my eyebrows when I notice that a woman at the office has plastic butterfly barrettes in her hair.
You're a snob, and your reflex action is to look down on people who don't share your highbrow tastes. You probably hated 80s horror movies as exploitative and horrible before you appraised them later in life as true examples of the cinematic form, once they acquired the appropriate critical cachet. I'm going to keep wearing shorts, BTW, because it's still 100 degrees outside.
But the idea that a YA book is beneath you is absurd. Harry Potter is just good yarn, told well. And I'd argue it's "better for you" culturally than a lot of shitty books aimed at adults (Dan Brown, anyone?). Sure your diet ONLY be YA books? Probably not. But I can enjoy both Upstream Color and The Avengers, too. I loved both A Separation AND Pacific Rim. There's been a breakdown in viewing habits, and that's a good thing. For Christ's sake, a graphic novel has won the Pulitzer Prize for literature. Cat's out of the bag.
quote:
Comic-book movies, family-friendly animated adventures, tales of adolescent heroism and comedies of arrested development do not only make up the commercial center of 21st-century Hollywood. They are its artistic heart.
In summer, yes. You know what? I wouldn't mind some more serious films aimed at adults in the summer. But you know what? 1994 is one of the greatest years in film, and the box office was dominated by adolescent heroism (True Lies, Speed), animated or family fare (Lion King, Santa Clause), and arrested development (The Mask, Dumb and Dumberer). OK, comic book films are a new trend, but they pushed out most action films. Even with those huge movies paying the bills, Hollywood cranked out Pulp Fiction, Shawshank, Leon, Ed Wood, Clerks, Quiz Show, Heavenly Creatures, Shallow Grave, Priest, etc.) It's not one or the other. The big movies pay for the little ones. It's always been this way. And you know what? Some of those big movies are great, too.
quote:
Before we answer that, an inquest may be in order. Who or what killed adulthood? Was the death slow or sudden? Natural or violent? The work of one culprit or many? Justifiable homicide or coldblooded murder?
It's not dead, so the answers are: no one, no speed at all, completely artificial, no culprit, and unjustified. You're welcome.
quote:
From the start, American culture was notably resistant to the claims of parental authority and the imperatives of adulthood.
This is where he points out his entire thesis is full of shite, and that's without getting into 1950s/60s literature and 70s/80s film. I hate On the Road, too, but come on. The book is over half a century old. Arguing that adulthood is not portrayed in American art is being a tad late to the party.
quote:
We devolve from Lenny Bruce to Adam Sandler, from “Catch-22” to “The Hangover,” from “Goodbye, Columbus” to “The Forty-Year-Old Virgin.”
Talk about false equivalencies. Lenny Bruce was a man-child himself, but how about we compare him to the current top comic, Louis CK? Adam Sandler is more of the progression from Jerry Lee Lewis, and I think that's a step forward. Catch-22 is a movie about the absurdity of war, so how about we compare it to something like Jarhead? And I'm going to get into this... but AO Scott's slander of Judd Apatow is completely unfounded. Let's see what he says:
quote:
In Sandler’s early, funny movies, and in many others released under Apatow’s imprimatur, women are confined to narrowly archetypal roles. Nice mommies and patient wives are idealized; it’s a relief to get away from them and a comfort to know that they’ll take care of you when you return. Mean mommies and controlling wives are ridiculed and humiliated. Sexually assertive women are in need of being shamed and tamed. True contentment is only found with your friends, who are into porn and “Star Wars” and weed and video games and all the stuff that girls and parents just don’t understand.
Apatow has directed four films: This is 40, Funny People, Knocked Up, and 40 Year Old Virgin. Which women fit these descriptions, other than the Leslie Mann character in This is 40, who at least is a well-rounded character who has her own voice? I think 40-Year Old Virgin clearly mocks the man boys in that film, and the sexually adventurous women are not punihsed. Catherine Keener is rewarded with a fundamentally decent husband in Steve Carrell. Her daughter is not shamed for wanting to have sex. Even Elizabeth Banks "freak" turns out to be perfect for Seth Rogan, who ends up dating her without judgment from the film. Apatow also directed Freaks and Geeks, which is largely sympathetic to the parents and even the friggin' gym teacher's POV.
But look at the movies/TV shows he has produced: feminsit fare with strong women like Girls, Bridesmaids, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Anchorman's central conceit is that the woman is the only one who is competent, held back by the patriarchy. Even his bro comedies Superbad and Step Brothers are largely sympathetic to the women. Calling Apatow some purveyor of sexist tripe is nothing short of slander. The guy likes dick jokes. So what?
quote:
Who is the most visible self-avowed feminist in the world right now? If your answer is anyone other than Beyoncé (fig. 6), you might be trying a little too hard to be contrarian.
If I were to make a list of feminists, Beyonce would rank about one millionth. Are you kidding me? In an article full of dumb, unsupportable statements, this one takes the cake. He then goes on to talk up Lena Dunham, who is a high profile feminist, working on a show produced by Judd Apatow.
In short, Scott is raging that we don't respect his opinion anymore. And he's right... we don't.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:09 am to Baloo
The fact no one replied to my post tells me that I'm right. Your silence will be interpreted as consent.
Thank you. Tip your waitresses.
Thank you. Tip your waitresses.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:06 am to Baloo
you took a post that was tl;dr and made it longer.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:15 am to BOSCEAUX
quote:As much as I hate the word "beta," he does come across as a white knight.
Dude sounds like a white knight beta.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:17 pm to Baloo
quote:
The fact no one replied to my post tells me that I'm right. Your silence will be interpreted as consent.
Thank you. Tip your waitresses.
Was coming back today to keep it going, the morning has stunk for me though. Only my second time logging into TD today. Oh the shame!
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:24 pm to Freauxzen
'sok. I'll wait. Apparently the kids are upset that adults are talking about adult things.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:47 pm to Baloo
quote:
Apparently the kids are upset that adults are talking about adult things.
You're a snob, and your reflex action is to look down on people who don't share your highbrow tastes.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:52 pm to uway
My tastes aren't highbrow (I'm quite middlebrow), and my argument was actually in favor of people's individual tastes being valid. My argument was actually in favor of the lowbrow. And I only look down on people who post "TL;DR" as it is inherently anti-intellectual, and essentially brags about one's own ignorance, which I find to be depressing.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:59 pm to Baloo
quote:
AO Scott is full of shite.
Not sold, but yeah this too. I think he makes a couple of good points. quote:
Really, his complaint is that the cultural universe no longer centers on the taste of upper middle class, private school educated white men from the Northeast: ie, him. He tries to say that he's all in favor of attacking the patriarchy, but only if that attack is in a way he is comfortable with and in the polite methods he supports. His problem is that the rest of us no longer look up to our cultural betters. But let's actually get to his weak-arse argument...
True. But he's also ok with it. Outside of the last line he's celebrating this "change," as a weak a change as it is.
His big hole, for me, that while Scott tries to examine the whole of culture starting from the conception of the US, he's making the assumptions that the state being achieved in culture now is "right," or "here to stay." In all this talk of upheaval the only natural next step is...another upheaval. Even if this "post-patriarchal =" culture becomes the norm, we're only destined to look at post-patriarchy as post-patriarchy and find ways to subvert it again.
Post-partiarchy can become "the man," too.
Anyways, I'll get to that.
quote:
Bull and shite.
Check out a list of the best shows on TV. You'll find plenty of shows with well-developed "adult" characters doing adult things: The Americans, Game of Thrones (sure, set in fantasy Medieval times but still adult patriarchs), Louie, Fargo, The Bridge, and House of Cards. We have powerful matriarchs in some of those shows as well as Parks and Rec, Orange is the New Black, Sons of Anarchy, and Orphan Black. The idea that there are no adults dealing with adult problems is utterly unfounded. The end of Mad Men is no more the end of an era than the end of the Sopranos was, no matter how much the show strokes your elitist ego.
Bingo. I can't believe he whiffed on Orange, that's maybe the most obvious example of A) High Quality B) Tackling the Patriarchy Thematically C) Strong all-female cast.
At the same time, even modern stories are trending toward interconnected myth-like structure, that's about as adult as you can get. He simply leaves out too many pieces to make a complete examination.
quote:
You're a snob, and your reflex action is to look down on people who don't share your highbrow tastes. You probably hated 80s horror movies as exploitative and horrible before you appraised them later in life as true examples of the cinematic form, once they acquired the appropriate critical cachet. I'm going to keep wearing shorts, BTW, because it's still 100 degrees outside.
But the idea that a YA book is beneath you is absurd. Harry Potter is just good yarn, told well. And I'd argue it's "better for you" culturally than a lot of shitty books aimed at adults (Dan Brown, anyone?). Sure your diet ONLY be YA books? Probably not. But I can enjoy both Upstream Color and The Avengers, too. I loved both A Separation AND Pacific Rim. There's been a breakdown in viewing habits, and that's a good thing. For Christ's sake, a graphic novel has won the Pulitzer Prize for literature. Cat's out of the bag.
It's a good thing, but I think this is at least one of the places where he gets close to something to say. Look, I mean there has to be a REASON why we see more postponed adulthood (guilty here). While it's good, it just may effect culture in some way. With all of these things happening kids are getting married later, owning houses later, having kids later, etc.
quote:
In summer, yes. You know what? I wouldn't mind some more serious films aimed at adults in the summer. But you know what? 1994 is one of the greatest years in film, and the box office was dominated by adolescent heroism (True Lies, Speed), animated or family fare (Lion King, Santa Clause), and arrested development (The Mask, Dumb and Dumberer). OK, comic book films are a new trend, but they pushed out most action films. Even with those huge movies paying the bills, Hollywood cranked out Pulp Fiction, Shawshank, Leon, Ed Wood, Clerks, Quiz Show, Heavenly Creatures, Shallow Grave, Priest, etc.) It's not one or the other. The big movies pay for the little ones. It's always been this way. And you know what? Some of those big movies are great, too.
Exactly. He's just blasting blockbusters, and blockbusters are well, blockbusters. Those films have always existed. Granted back in the 1940s every film was either a family film or a drama, we're just more diverse now and the things that attract the widest set of viewers are ALWAYS going to be more popular. That's just simple math.
Your high-impact, R-rated drama as blockbuster is an ultra-rare bird.
quote:
This is where he points out his entire thesis is full of shite, and that's without getting into 1950s/60s literature and 70s/80s film. I hate On the Road, too, but come on. The book is over half a century old. Arguing that adulthood is not portrayed in American art is being a tad late to the party.
He keeps saying adulthood, and I think he means authority, hence my first point about the idea of "upheaval," or revolt. Adulthood and authority or related, but different concepts. America isn't combative because it doesn't like. So while i think he's right in that America has always been fixating on this idea, he's got the wrong form of the idea. It's authority. (Generally seen to be the patriarchy, but see above, we're bound to go at it again.)
Talking about American Fiction as perpetual YA Fiction just about ticked me off. Mostly because the Short Story is one of the most innovative movements in literature and, as an art form, it's American by default.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:02 pm to Baloo
quote:
My tastes aren't highbrow (I'm quite middlebrow), and my argument was actually in favor of people's individual tastes being valid. My argument was actually in favor of the lowbrow. And I only look down on people who post "TL;DR" as it is inherently anti-intellectual, and essentially brags about one's own ignorance, which I find to be depressing.
Yeah but I used your words against you. BOOM.
My favorite movies are About Time, It's a Wonderful Life, and Groundhog Day. I also immensely enjoyed Pitch Perfect. So there.
Re: the article that inspired your loquacious critique (which I read word for word), I haven't thought about it enough to make a good reply, so now I guess I'm just typing to type. Exiting thread.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:31 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
His big hole, for me, that while Scott tries to examine the whole of culture starting from the conception of the US, he's making the assumptions that the state being achieved in culture now is "right," or "here to stay." In all this talk of upheaval the only natural next step is...another upheaval. Even if this "post-patriarchal =" culture becomes the norm, we're only destined to look at post-patriarchy as post-patriarchy and find ways to subvert it again.
Everyone always thinks Now is The End of History. It's not. It's the middle, like it always has been. To people in the future, this is just the past. I think he's based his argument upon a total fallacy, not to mention I think he's only paying lip service to breaking down the patriarchy because that's what you say in the right kind of company. He wants the patriarchy precisely because he is part of it, and benefits from it -- he is a culture writer for the NY Times.
quote:
At the same time, even modern stories are trending toward interconnected myth-like structure, that's about as adult as you can get. He simply leaves out too many pieces to make a complete examination.
Forget a complete examination, he never gets off the ground. The idea that there are no adult characters or themes on netowrk TV required some extreme linguistic jujitsu to recontextualize Louie, and he outright ignored Orange is the New Black (and House of Cards).
quote:
It's a good thing, but I think this is at least one of the places where he gets close to something to say. Look, I mean there has to be a REASON why we see more postponed adulthood (guilty here). While it's good, it just may effect culture in some way. With all of these things happening kids are getting married later, owning houses later, having kids later, etc.
Yes, but that's also a different argument. He argued there is NO adulthood, not a delayed one. And this could be an interesting argument, but I think the answer is more along these lines: we rob children of their childhood through parental over-worry and over-scheduling. Kids are under immense pressure from an early age to be a future success, and many of their activities are calculated to get them into the best schools or whatnot. By the time a middle class kid graduates college, this is the first time that child gets to have unstructured play without fear of consequence. These aren't prolonged childhoods, they are delayed.
There's also the economic factors that young people are priced out of "starter homes" and are saddled with crushing student loan debt. But that ventures into other topics, and is not his argument - the "Death of Adulthood".
quote:
He keeps saying adulthood, and I think he means authority, hence my first point about the idea of "upheaval," or revolt. Adulthood and authority or related, but different concepts. America isn't combative because it doesn't like. So while i think he's right in that America has always been fixating on this idea, he's got the wrong form of the idea. It's authority. (Generally seen to be the patriarchy, but see above, we're bound to go at it again.)
Which still makes no sense because, as he points out in his own article, American art has historically idealized chafing under authority. That's a cultural norm dating back to our creation myth.
When has authority ever been portrayed universally positive in American culture? Nathaniel Hawthorne was one of the very first American authors, and his most famous work is ridiculing authority (The Scarlet Letter). This isn't a devolution of American culture, this is the starting point?
But I think AO Scott is trying to say we're all juvenile because we like comic book fare, YA literature, and gross out comedies. I'd point out that comic books have long since surpassed its beginnings as juvenile fare with a simplistic world view. Comic book films, like any other kind of film, can go in any direction and be as a deep or as shallow as its creators desire. I've already told him to get bent over YA literature, which I stand by. As for gross out humor... well, poop jokes date back to The Canterbury tales. Shakespeare liked poop jokes. Hell, one of the few surviving plays from Ancient Greece is one extended dick joke (Lysistrate).
The idea that adulthood means being staid, boring, and deferential of authority is patently false. Art has always railed against authority, particularly American art. And even "serious" works of art have delighted in poop and dick jokes, and simply raising the middle finger and saying frick You. It was a film by a "serious" director that first used the word "frick" (MASH, Altman).
Being juvenile is part of being an adult. Even wearing flip flops when its hot outside, despite his sneering disapproval.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." -- Plato's Republic
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News