So I haven't loved McLuhan's book, The Meduim is the Massage. Actually, I've despised it. It feels like a complete contradiction, and sometimes I question whether or not he's actually for the new media or against it -- I guess his humor doesn't work for me.
Speaking of humor, he says on page 92, "Older societies thrived on purely literary plots. They demanded story lines. Today's humor, on the contrary, has no story line--no sequence. It is usually a compressed overlay of stories." Then, in huge bold letters, taking up a fourth of the page: "AMATUER."
WOW. I find it altogether intriguing that McLuhan could possibly feel compelled to comment on humor, as if he is the end-all, be-all of humor knowledge and criticism. While I agree, I wonder why he has decided to call that "amatuer." To me, humor based upon our lives and struggles, those that are composed by the melding of interesting stories and events, are the more entertaining and thought-provoking ones. There is a certain underlying theme or motive behind humor presented in this way, and it calls for a questioning of ideals or morals, etc.
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather hear a joke or a humorous story about life itself than I would about wanna'-hear-how-the-chicken-crossed-the-road-it's-really-interesting-how-he-does-it-and-did-you-hear-the-one-about-what-the-dollar-bill-named-his-daughter-ha-ha-ha.
Melanie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ahhh. Interesting post about McLuhan's comment on humor. Unfortunately, I don't have that book with me, so I can't really comment, but I'll try now and come back to it later. From what you've summarized, it seems that he's characterizing as amateur "today's humor." If that's true, it would seem that you and he agree, that stories, literary plots, are what you both like.
ReplyDeleteIt's often very difficult to nail McLuhan down. People have often noted that difficulty with him. He explains it--as I was saying in class on Thursday--by calling his writing "probes" and "explorations." That way he can't be held to a particular or consistent point of view. That said, overall he does seem to recur to the same themes. One of them you touched on in your first paragraph. He does seem, rather consistently, to prefer to new as opposed to the old (typographic, Gutenberg) media. He likes the "all-at-onceness" of electric media. But that certainly raises a contradiction with calling "today's humor" "amateur."
As you could see from the YouTube video we played in class, he's nothing if not assertive, opinionated, and abrupt. He doesn't tend to explain things or develop ideas (especially in our book, The Medium is the Massage) very fully. He's gnomic and prides himself on it. You could see it in the video--the smirk on his face as he confounded Brokaw.
So often individual passages (like the humor one you cited) are hard to work into his overall scheme. But I think the overall scheme is pretty consistent even if particular parts somehow don't seem to fit. For the few that don't, there are probably more that do.
Thanks for the specific comment, Melanie. I can't seem to get into your group blog, but I'm glad things flowed to this one.
Gordon C
Perhaps it is exactly that, how as you're reading the book, you can picture McLuhan smirking like he did on the video, that keeps getting on my nerves. With all of the books we're reading, perhaps with the exception of "Brave New World," I can't seem to take the authors seriously or esteem them at all because they've already done that to themselves. What kind of literary classic or scholarly writing has parts of the text that are inconsistent with the rest? If that were an analysis paper or graded work of any kind, McLuhan would likely receive a failing grade because he is inconsistent, vague, and comes across as if he knows absolutely everything about the media when he doesn't provide real evidence.
ReplyDeleteIt just rubs me the wrong way. I think our writers need a few slices of humble cake.
Grrrr. Yesterday when I read your comment, I didn't have McLuhan at home. So when I was out, I made a point of stopping by school to get it. I did but couldn't get back to this blog (I'm not nearly finished with other comments) and now I find I've left both McLuhan and Postman at home. What I wanted with the book was to look at the passage you quoted and see if I could work it in. Because I really do think that, overall, he's quite consistent.
ReplyDeleteAs to a failing grade, there was a period in the late 70's and early 80's where both academics and the general public didn't talk about him much--the equivalent of a failing grade. For whatever reasons, however, he's again resurgent. He was thought to be wacky and prescient from the late sixties to the late 70s. Then ignored. Now prescient and compellingly accurate about the world we've finally entered, the one he sensed in 1967. It goes without saying that no one will bludgeon you into reconsidering, but you're building a large edifice of rejection on one quoted passage and that edifice is, at this point, in a pretty lonely neighborhood.
Well, I've got to stop doing this. I write a comment and try to post it. The message comes up, "your request could not be processed." Nothing else. Just "try again." Ok. Same result.
ReplyDeleteWhat's happening, I guess, is that the comment is too long. So here's the second half of the last comment.
But I'll leave it. Not everyone has the same taste, and this, I think, is largely about taste--about his arrogance and smirk. And yet your assertions referenced one passage in McLuhan and led to generalizations about "all of the books we're reading."
I hope you don't just do a Tannen "argument culture" demonstration and instead try to look at McLuhan--and the others--as advancing theses that lots of people have found worth thinking about. Not everyone agrees, of course, and that's certainly desirable. If everyone agreed, they really wouldn't be saying much.
What did you find surprising or new or intriguing about Tannen's chapter on "listening to other cultures"? I was particularly struck by the idea of non-duality in especially Asian cultures and about the use of intermediaries to resolve disputes based on seeing the individual as deriving significant identity from a social network.
Gordon C
On the same page, right under the big AMATEUR, it begins talking about the man who didn't recieve formal education and went on to do work about induction of electricity. He basically says that being ignorant made it possible for him to discover what he did.
ReplyDeleteI think this idea is very true, to a certain extent. Obviously, being ignorant will not help you with everything, but sometimes having a blank page to start from makes all the difference.
As an example, I was babysitting a four and seeven year old. We were trying to solve a maze. the seven year old told me that he would finish faster than me and the three year old because he had tricks and techniques that worked every time. We decided to make it a race. We all had the same maze. The seven year old got frustrated immediately when he backed himself into a corner, but would not stop using his "fool proof tricks". The three year old looked at hers for a while, made paths with her fingers, and finished her maze almost ten minutes before the seven year old. She was able to do the maze so easily because she had no preconcieved notions of how she "should" be doing it.
When I was reading Tannen, all I could think about is my moral philosophy class. Right before I read Tannen, I was reading Aristotle. In it, he was talking about the moderation of emotions, and how it is important to know the correct amount of emotion to show, appropriate to the situation. I think that ties in perfectly with Tannen, but instead of being simply about the different situations described by aristotle, we need to factor in the cultural differences as well as the situational differences.
Elizabeth
McLuhan I just have to take him for what I think he is a smartass with a very good eye and hear for analytical thinking. You know after watching the YouTube video and listening to him discuss the book he makes a lot sense to me, in that if the (news media) choreographer is hitting the demographic with what professionals and Politian’s in the case of the video-want you to see that’s the message you will get. If it is open to idea and alternative thoughts in discussion, is the message you will get … it is how the medium displays the message.
ReplyDeleteI think McLuhan makes a lot of sense. Yes his humor is kind of cynical and full headed, but he is in a moment I would say. I did not enjoy his book just because I hate the whole talk about media alllll the time because it is going to ruin the world. I just think differently. But I strongly believe that McLuhan is consistent and yes is full headed, but I respect him believing in his thoughts and articulating them in a strate forward way. I like that there is no filler in his book, and I like that what he says is really applicable to life. There is a bigger picture that is being touched on, expanded on and in a way respected, by McLuhan.
ReplyDeleteWhat an intriguing set of comments. Elizabeth, I really connect with your linking of Tannen with Aristotle and A's constant recursion to the "mean" in everything, here emotions.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think your connection of "amateur" with (is it?) Faraday? The amateur theme is there with Einstein, too, whose great discoveries were founded on images and metaphors rather than physics. So often it's the fresh view that allows the breakthrough.
Paddlehead's (Nick's??) comment about McLuhan as a smart-mouth (actually, I think I remember smartass) who takes pleasure in tweaking the noses of serious commentators. Not that he's not serious, but he seems to like to challenge and to provoke.
And Kaley . . . it is interesting that McLuhan doesn't dump on electronics. He thinks it's the greatest thing since Gutenberg, and actually better because it will get away from all our alientation and criticism and visual separateness. I find the ideas intriguing even though often puzzling. I find that if I puzzle over them a bit, like a kaleidoscope they 'll kind of resolve into a patterned mosaic.
Gordon