The ranting and raving of conservatives at town hall meetings isn't all bad for America. That's right. I said it. Worldwide it has always been progressive parties who come out to protests. Very rarely are people out with signs saying, "Support the rich!" or "I want less civil rights!" Progress is often made when the wealthy becomes corrupt and people have had enough of being under their thumb. In fact the very premise of Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" (that few have actually read, but everyone seems to oppose) was/ is that capitalism could only work for a finite amount of time before it would isolate wealth within a small portion of the population and the people would demand a fairer economic system. Where he was wrong was in capitalism's ability to keep "the people" on the rope just enough that they might complain, but they won't rise up. Socialism is the natural next step (after industrialization) of a civilized nation. It is where people go once their country has made enough money to raise the entire nation to the next level--a moral high ground that cares about everyone living there. The reason working and middle class citizens are protesting is that they are no where close to being able to comprehend a moral high ground in their personal lives. Morality is a subject out of their realm of comprehension. It gets them no closer to having their basic needs met.
Let's take, say, the family of a medical doctor. They make a considerable amount of money and I don't think anyone would argue that if they are not financially well-off it is their own fault. The children of these individuals will likely have their schooling paid for--in many cases private schooling with very dedicated teachers and very harsh rules that encourage discipline and self-reliance. The children of wealthier families can see the value in this type of education mainly because they are allowed to have very high standards for their lives. They won't have student loans to pay back, they won't have to work fulltime jobs that distract from their studies, they won't have dysfunctional families causing trauma in their lives; they can focus solely on learning and later on making money. These people hopefully learn a certain level of compassion somewhere along the line. Financial comfort makes it easy to be compassionate. If one has a great deal of disposable income it is eventually seen as rudeness and avarice to not give something back. It can also become socially isolating. Thus, these are not the people we are seeing at anti-healthcare reform rallies. In fact these individuals have been relatively quiet in this debate. Why? What decent human being with financial and social comfort is going to stand in the face of 50 million uninsured and millions more under-insured--people who are their neighbors and family members in many cases--and say, "We don't need reform. Let them figure out a way to take care of themselves."
This is why the ranting mobs of middle and working class conservatives at town hall protests is encouraging to me. It means they are engaging in the national conversation. This is the first step toward learning, and thus, toward progress. Eventually they are either going to get tired and go home, commiserating with one another, and feeling dejected and unheard, or they are going to calm down and attempt to articulate what specifically they are so angry about. The reform is for them. They are the uninsured and under-insured, yet they have been so ingrained with the, "Government bad, free market good" dogma that they can't even hear the details of the plans being discussed. As "the people" (meaning the majority of Americans making under $50K a year) become engaged in the debate--if they actually listen and debate--will start to recognize that they are being very subtly oppressed by the principles they believe so strongly in. When this realization hits on a widespread level a country naturally moves left. We are the most conservative democratic industrialized nation in the world. The fact that this is true speaks to how uninformed and hopeless our citizenry feels in competing with corporate fat cats. They've made their peace with these giants and walk through life trying to be good little conservative workers so these companies will hire them. The only way to compete with corporations is to use the legislative powers of government to balance the scales. Engaging in the national conversation leads people to see that this is true. When the majority starts voting to tax the wealthy more to instate more public options (and improve those that exist) to supplement their small salaries (instead of supplementing with credit card debt and irrational loans, and unhealthy means of making money, which only makes them weaker an corporations stronger), the country will improve all around. It's happened all over Europe. Gun violence drops, crime decreases, drug and alcohol related issues decrease, etc. People want and need to be taken care of. So far the people have not realized that the answer is as simple as showing up at public events and speaking their minds. Instead they turn to unhealthy behaviors to ignore the issues or get their needs met. They isolate, the way depressed people do. They pull out of the conversation and out of the culture and become hard and stubborn and ignorant. Then we see what we have now; people protesting their own best interests in favor of supporting the very people denying them health coverage.
This is why I am secretly loving the political atmosphere of the U.S. these days. People are engaged. They're pissed and they're coming out of the woodwork. This does two things: 1) It allows respectable, moderate conservatives living in their comfortable suburbs to see how scary their political party has become, and 2) It allows these people to start learning about politics in general. It's embarrassing how little Americans know about their government. If radical reforms is what gets people researching their arguments and trying to make cases against progressive politicians trying to help them, I'll take it. Let'em yell, or let'em learn. Either way it's better than watching them isolate and collect garages full of guns waiting for the second coming to solve all their problems.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Popular Fiction: The Junk Food of the Arts
I don't believe it will come as any surprise that the United States is obsessed with popular culture. In the world of literature, it is no different. People have become inured with gimmicky storytelling, visceral, knee-jerk plot twists, and weak-minded characters constantly engaged in gratuitous sex, violence, and greedy quests for wealth. These formulaic tricks are in most televisions shows, most Hollywood movies, most popular fiction writing, and increasingly a part of our day-to-day reality. It isn't that these mediums and styles don't have entertainment value. This kind of writing has been around as long as any other kind of literature--and I am no saint when it comes to not indulging in my animal instincts--but when it comes to the point, as it has, when people find boobs and explosions more interesting than the human condition and psyche, it's time to reevaluate what we are ingesting. Otherwise, someone should get on developing a television channel where keys are jingled at a camera 24 hours a day.
What many people seem to forget from their high school English classes (arguably because high school teachers are learning more about classroom management and utilizing technology than they are about understanding the subjects they teach) is how interesting human obsessions, subjectivity, flaws, strengths, vices, quarks, criticisms, and drives can be. Some are probably saying to themselves, "But it's all been done. How many more times can an old man fall in love with a young vixen and question his morality, or a disillusioned vagabond go searching for meaning?" To you I ask, "How many more times can one read or watch doctors, lawyers, and forensic psychologists problem solve while trying to resist screwing each other in a back office?"
There are four general themes that all stories fall into: a love affair between two people, a love affair between three or more people, the quest, and dealing with death. Even popular stories combine these themes--it's just a matter of craft. Bad writing (like bad music, art, theater, film, etc) is like corporate prints hanging on the walls of office buildings; safe; saying nothing; exposing nothing; taking no risks, and creating no feelings except perhaps the trite, "Awe, that's a pleasant feeling. I wish I could feel that way instead of this soul-crushing pain of sitting in this cubicle wasting away for a retirement plan." Good writing (like good art of any kind) gets inside a person. It makes one think, question, and feel. It takes one to places one could never dream of going in real life. It's sexy (not sexual). It delves into moral gray areas and has one questioning one's values and life choices. It exposes the grotesque. It changes lives and minds. This is what one should be demanding of their writers. Instead we accept what is put in front of us. Bad writing is all that is on television. It's all that is on the best-seller lists. It's all that is in your local theater. Thus, it must be what someone with knowledge of these things thinks is good, right? Wrong.
As an English major, young writer and, thus far, struggling novelist, I have searched far and wide for an "in" in the publishing world. I've subscribed to Writer's Digest and received emails for writing competitions. I've mastered crafting the perfect query letter and I've tried looking for guidance at writer's conferences. At every turn the question has always been presented this way: "Are you the next Stephen King?" I hang my head and try not to laugh (or cry, depending on my mood). No one is asking, "Are you the next Hemingway?" No one is asking, "Are you Kurt Vonnegut's predecessor?" It isn't a question of, "Are you going to define our generation to those who come after us?" but essentially, "Can you devise the perfect template with the ideal marketing hook to sell millions of books overnight?"
To be fair Stephen King does use some literary tools (he did after all study creative writing), but let's face it, no one has ever walked away from a Stephen King novel questioning the ennui of their generation, or the absurdity of western culture (see Hemingway and Vonnegut). If anything he leaves us paranoid of our dog's intensions, avoiding small towns in Maine, and questioning our spouse's sanity (one of his better themes by and by). The same is true of our music, our art interests, and our boredom with theater. We like things upbeat in America. Happiness keeps us productive and thinking too much depresses us. Thus, we work, we drink, we go to church, or temple, or mosque, we jog, we chatter, we follow sports and sitcoms, we pop pills, we go to therapy; anything to avoid accepting the darker sides of our human condition. We don't demand that our musicians know how to play their instruments. As long as they can play three chords and get us bobbing our heads in unison, we're happy as babies with a pinwheel. We don't demand that our actors can act so long as they weigh under ninety pounds while maintaining the rack of a pregnant woman. If I have to watch one more muscle-bound hunk with a five o'clock shadow and an eighth grade vocabulary blow up the bad foreign man, I may find out if my television can swim. Likewise, we don't demand that our writers can write. We want out-of-the-blue plot twists just as the chapter is ending. We want promiscuous blonds, lawyers on yachts, and a constant building of tension that inevitably putters out in some cliche life lesson or death of the antagonist.
I'm not saying the occasional speed read and viscerally gratifying experience is so wrong. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be a way of life. Much like fast food should be the occasional treat releasing you momentarily from your usual disciplined eating habits, pop culture should be appreciated in moderation. These "artists" should have to suffer through the challenges of mastering their craft. They should not be rewarded for being the antithesis of talent and discipline. Think of two hundred years from now when those who come after us study our culture and think to themselves, "Wow, they didn't even make an effort, did they?" Is this how you want your cohort's brief period in the time/ space continuum to be remembered? Really? America's Got Talent? I'm not so sure anymore.
What many people seem to forget from their high school English classes (arguably because high school teachers are learning more about classroom management and utilizing technology than they are about understanding the subjects they teach) is how interesting human obsessions, subjectivity, flaws, strengths, vices, quarks, criticisms, and drives can be. Some are probably saying to themselves, "But it's all been done. How many more times can an old man fall in love with a young vixen and question his morality, or a disillusioned vagabond go searching for meaning?" To you I ask, "How many more times can one read or watch doctors, lawyers, and forensic psychologists problem solve while trying to resist screwing each other in a back office?"
There are four general themes that all stories fall into: a love affair between two people, a love affair between three or more people, the quest, and dealing with death. Even popular stories combine these themes--it's just a matter of craft. Bad writing (like bad music, art, theater, film, etc) is like corporate prints hanging on the walls of office buildings; safe; saying nothing; exposing nothing; taking no risks, and creating no feelings except perhaps the trite, "Awe, that's a pleasant feeling. I wish I could feel that way instead of this soul-crushing pain of sitting in this cubicle wasting away for a retirement plan." Good writing (like good art of any kind) gets inside a person. It makes one think, question, and feel. It takes one to places one could never dream of going in real life. It's sexy (not sexual). It delves into moral gray areas and has one questioning one's values and life choices. It exposes the grotesque. It changes lives and minds. This is what one should be demanding of their writers. Instead we accept what is put in front of us. Bad writing is all that is on television. It's all that is on the best-seller lists. It's all that is in your local theater. Thus, it must be what someone with knowledge of these things thinks is good, right? Wrong.
As an English major, young writer and, thus far, struggling novelist, I have searched far and wide for an "in" in the publishing world. I've subscribed to Writer's Digest and received emails for writing competitions. I've mastered crafting the perfect query letter and I've tried looking for guidance at writer's conferences. At every turn the question has always been presented this way: "Are you the next Stephen King?" I hang my head and try not to laugh (or cry, depending on my mood). No one is asking, "Are you the next Hemingway?" No one is asking, "Are you Kurt Vonnegut's predecessor?" It isn't a question of, "Are you going to define our generation to those who come after us?" but essentially, "Can you devise the perfect template with the ideal marketing hook to sell millions of books overnight?"
To be fair Stephen King does use some literary tools (he did after all study creative writing), but let's face it, no one has ever walked away from a Stephen King novel questioning the ennui of their generation, or the absurdity of western culture (see Hemingway and Vonnegut). If anything he leaves us paranoid of our dog's intensions, avoiding small towns in Maine, and questioning our spouse's sanity (one of his better themes by and by). The same is true of our music, our art interests, and our boredom with theater. We like things upbeat in America. Happiness keeps us productive and thinking too much depresses us. Thus, we work, we drink, we go to church, or temple, or mosque, we jog, we chatter, we follow sports and sitcoms, we pop pills, we go to therapy; anything to avoid accepting the darker sides of our human condition. We don't demand that our musicians know how to play their instruments. As long as they can play three chords and get us bobbing our heads in unison, we're happy as babies with a pinwheel. We don't demand that our actors can act so long as they weigh under ninety pounds while maintaining the rack of a pregnant woman. If I have to watch one more muscle-bound hunk with a five o'clock shadow and an eighth grade vocabulary blow up the bad foreign man, I may find out if my television can swim. Likewise, we don't demand that our writers can write. We want out-of-the-blue plot twists just as the chapter is ending. We want promiscuous blonds, lawyers on yachts, and a constant building of tension that inevitably putters out in some cliche life lesson or death of the antagonist.
I'm not saying the occasional speed read and viscerally gratifying experience is so wrong. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be a way of life. Much like fast food should be the occasional treat releasing you momentarily from your usual disciplined eating habits, pop culture should be appreciated in moderation. These "artists" should have to suffer through the challenges of mastering their craft. They should not be rewarded for being the antithesis of talent and discipline. Think of two hundred years from now when those who come after us study our culture and think to themselves, "Wow, they didn't even make an effort, did they?" Is this how you want your cohort's brief period in the time/ space continuum to be remembered? Really? America's Got Talent? I'm not so sure anymore.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Modern Indentured Servitude
I'm not normally a fan of using dictionary definitions in my writing as, after all, they are just one group of scholars' opinions on what a word means, but in this case I think the definition is general enough that Webster will suffice. The Merriam-Webster dictionary refers to indentured servitude as a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance. In the 17th and 18th centuries Europeans of various backgrounds came to the states and worked for landowners. These were individuals and families who came with nothing and worked for "free" in return for having their travel expenses paid, and food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities provided. They were not technically slaves as they signed contracts that bound them to the landowner for a number of years after which they could leave. As with slavery, which was a similar situation but with individuals who were not allowed to leave, these were workers who took very little out of the profits of the landowners and were not a threat to the industry at large. They were kept at arms-length, taken care of on a very minimal basis (essentially enough to stay alive and keep working), and then put out into the world with only the clothes on their backs and a clean slate to start a life. Doesn't sound like too bad of a situation for some. In fact many today would say this is a win-win for both parties.
Here's the trouble.
On an individual level, yes, this is not a bad deal for many who were coming over to America. On a broad scale this was the beginning of tyrannical rule by the private sector of American industry. As the poor had their minimal needs met through incredibly difficult and dangerous working situations that lasted long hours and paid very little, allowed no time for education or creativity, or time to spend with loved ones, the landowners became incredibly wealthy by delegating responsibilities to low paid "supervisors" (literally slave drivers at the time) and enjoying the massive profits they incurred from the labor of others. This wealth, of course, was then passed down to generations who followed, isolating the wealth further amongst a select few in our society. As history progressed, even though slavery was outlawed, indentured servitude continues.
Consider modern day mainstream American culture. Assuming one will not inherit the wealth of his or her elders at some point in adulthood, an average American has one of two choices for his or her future. One, he or she can forgo higher education and establish himself or herself within a company after high school with the intention of making immediate money, avoiding debt and making his or her peace with the long hours, unfulfilling work and working under management that is equally uneducated, dissatisfied, and underpaid. Many of these companies will be corporately owned and run businesses in which they will never know who it is exactly they work for. Again, not a horrible option, but one in which these individuals will do far more work than they are paid for and have very minimal possibilities to compete in the free market. The second option is to incur the debt of a college education, enter the work force at a slightly higher level, with a slightly bigger paycheck, and the appearance of a better life. In reality this choice leaves an individual tens of thousands of dollars in debt leaving no viable option except to accept work at an already established company that can afford to pay back some of these loans, provide benefits and what, in the end, amounts to a stipend compared to what the company makes as a whole. Sound familiar? Contracted work for basic needs while workers scrape by and owners continue to isolate wealth among a small percentage of society.
Here's the icing on the cake.
These companies have become so large that--although the potential to start a small business is still a possibility--they can essentially move into any town they choose, put every small business out of business (aggressively and intentionally), hire the entire town to work for them, and become the only providers of goods to the very people they employ. How do you like that for indentured servitude? They own the country so long as the country continues to function under deregulated free market principles. A side note to complete corporate take over of rural towns is that when these corporations begin to lose money (as they inevitably will during the natural booms and busts of the economy) they will close down their stores in the towns that make the least profits and leave the people there bankrupt. Everyone will foreclose on their loans, people will lose their houses, and in most cases the town will be forced to transplant themselves in order to survive.
However, despite these dismal prospects of success in America, most Americans still believe in the fictitious "carrot" principles of capitalism. Though, for all practical purposes, we are all enslaved to a handful of corporate giants who continue to get wealthier as the rest of us, maybe, if we are incredibly disciplined and ambitious, may attain a middle-of-the-road lifestyle before it is time to retire. Again, not a horrible prospect by comparison to the majority of the world population, but there is yet another kicker. Our newly elected president is offering the people of America a chance to take their country back from these giants through increasing taxes on the wealthiest of us, enforcing greater regulations to provide safer, healthier, and more enjoyable workplaces, and offering more public options for gaining our basic needs for life. Unfortunately, rather than celebrating this liberation from tyrannical rule of corporate business owners the people are ironically calling the president a tyrant and a fascist. The average American household makes between $30,000 and $70,000 a year. This means the average American will not pay higher taxes for the plans Obama is trying to attain for them. Yet, they have been so duped by the people who have taken over their towns, outsourced their jobs, pay them unlivable wages, provide them with the lowest quality of food and goods while simultaneously paying themselves million dollar if not billion dollar salaries per year that they are fighting the government who wants to take some of that wealth away and use it for the good of society at large. They trust the "landowners" who have enslaved them over the people they democratically elected and have complete control over through free speech, voting power, and lobbying rights. These business owners are not people who worked hard and got where they are because the system works. They are in large part the ancestors of the very people who used slavery and indentured servitude from colonial times to increase the wealth of a few while keeping down the majority. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. There are your Bill Gates and other characters who instantly make it big, but these individuals are so few and far between that to continue policies that allow a one in three hundred million chance at becoming wealthy while the vast majority turn the tiny but numerous wheels of industry in a trillion dollar national economy while receiving very little in return seems ludicrous. Americans claim they are free, but how free can one be when the choices for life are so few and the real power brokers are not democratically elected? I personally believe our situation has resulted not from the greed of corporations, not from the constant lobbying of currupted government officials, but from the uneducated citizenry that exists in our country and the apathy of the people to fight for what will most benefit their lives.
Here's the trouble.
On an individual level, yes, this is not a bad deal for many who were coming over to America. On a broad scale this was the beginning of tyrannical rule by the private sector of American industry. As the poor had their minimal needs met through incredibly difficult and dangerous working situations that lasted long hours and paid very little, allowed no time for education or creativity, or time to spend with loved ones, the landowners became incredibly wealthy by delegating responsibilities to low paid "supervisors" (literally slave drivers at the time) and enjoying the massive profits they incurred from the labor of others. This wealth, of course, was then passed down to generations who followed, isolating the wealth further amongst a select few in our society. As history progressed, even though slavery was outlawed, indentured servitude continues.
Consider modern day mainstream American culture. Assuming one will not inherit the wealth of his or her elders at some point in adulthood, an average American has one of two choices for his or her future. One, he or she can forgo higher education and establish himself or herself within a company after high school with the intention of making immediate money, avoiding debt and making his or her peace with the long hours, unfulfilling work and working under management that is equally uneducated, dissatisfied, and underpaid. Many of these companies will be corporately owned and run businesses in which they will never know who it is exactly they work for. Again, not a horrible option, but one in which these individuals will do far more work than they are paid for and have very minimal possibilities to compete in the free market. The second option is to incur the debt of a college education, enter the work force at a slightly higher level, with a slightly bigger paycheck, and the appearance of a better life. In reality this choice leaves an individual tens of thousands of dollars in debt leaving no viable option except to accept work at an already established company that can afford to pay back some of these loans, provide benefits and what, in the end, amounts to a stipend compared to what the company makes as a whole. Sound familiar? Contracted work for basic needs while workers scrape by and owners continue to isolate wealth among a small percentage of society.
Here's the icing on the cake.
These companies have become so large that--although the potential to start a small business is still a possibility--they can essentially move into any town they choose, put every small business out of business (aggressively and intentionally), hire the entire town to work for them, and become the only providers of goods to the very people they employ. How do you like that for indentured servitude? They own the country so long as the country continues to function under deregulated free market principles. A side note to complete corporate take over of rural towns is that when these corporations begin to lose money (as they inevitably will during the natural booms and busts of the economy) they will close down their stores in the towns that make the least profits and leave the people there bankrupt. Everyone will foreclose on their loans, people will lose their houses, and in most cases the town will be forced to transplant themselves in order to survive.
However, despite these dismal prospects of success in America, most Americans still believe in the fictitious "carrot" principles of capitalism. Though, for all practical purposes, we are all enslaved to a handful of corporate giants who continue to get wealthier as the rest of us, maybe, if we are incredibly disciplined and ambitious, may attain a middle-of-the-road lifestyle before it is time to retire. Again, not a horrible prospect by comparison to the majority of the world population, but there is yet another kicker. Our newly elected president is offering the people of America a chance to take their country back from these giants through increasing taxes on the wealthiest of us, enforcing greater regulations to provide safer, healthier, and more enjoyable workplaces, and offering more public options for gaining our basic needs for life. Unfortunately, rather than celebrating this liberation from tyrannical rule of corporate business owners the people are ironically calling the president a tyrant and a fascist. The average American household makes between $30,000 and $70,000 a year. This means the average American will not pay higher taxes for the plans Obama is trying to attain for them. Yet, they have been so duped by the people who have taken over their towns, outsourced their jobs, pay them unlivable wages, provide them with the lowest quality of food and goods while simultaneously paying themselves million dollar if not billion dollar salaries per year that they are fighting the government who wants to take some of that wealth away and use it for the good of society at large. They trust the "landowners" who have enslaved them over the people they democratically elected and have complete control over through free speech, voting power, and lobbying rights. These business owners are not people who worked hard and got where they are because the system works. They are in large part the ancestors of the very people who used slavery and indentured servitude from colonial times to increase the wealth of a few while keeping down the majority. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. There are your Bill Gates and other characters who instantly make it big, but these individuals are so few and far between that to continue policies that allow a one in three hundred million chance at becoming wealthy while the vast majority turn the tiny but numerous wheels of industry in a trillion dollar national economy while receiving very little in return seems ludicrous. Americans claim they are free, but how free can one be when the choices for life are so few and the real power brokers are not democratically elected? I personally believe our situation has resulted not from the greed of corporations, not from the constant lobbying of currupted government officials, but from the uneducated citizenry that exists in our country and the apathy of the people to fight for what will most benefit their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
